D teDue
	.?•
	J
	-a
	\
	1
	T k
FORM t09

AlfALTSIS OF

WATSON'S THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES.

Presented to the

LIBRARY of the

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

by the

INSTITUTE FOR

CHRISTIAN STUDIES

^M

'W^f^'^t

INSTITUTE FOR hi^M^fm TORONTO, CAnAC/

ANALYSIS

REV. EICHAED WATSON'S

THEOLOGICAL mSTITUTES,

DESIGNED FOR THE USE OF

STUDENTS AND EXAMINING COMMITTEES.

Xlcfaiscb anb Corrrrtcb €bition.

LONDON :

GEORGE LAMB, SUTTON STREET, COMMERCIAL EOAD, EAST.

AUG 2 0 1997

LONDON : PRINTED BY T. DANKS, CRANE COURT, FLEET STREET.

ADVERTISEMENT.

The " Theological Institutes " of the Rev. Richard WataoM furnish, to young ministers and students, the most faithful and ■comprehensive exposition of the doctrines of Christianity, as held by the several sections of the wide-spread Methodist family. Though the work was originally published, in parts, between the years 1823 and 1829, it has never been superseded by any later system of divinity ; but is still adapted, with very few eEceptionsi to the advanced state of theological literature, and is really indispensable to the student of Methodist Theology.

The "Theological, Institutes" partake much of the spirit of Melancthon, and of the power of Episcopius. And, as a System •of Theology, vigorously and devoutly reasoned, it is deservedly esteemed by many ministers and students beyond the pale of Methodism. In 1852, the late Dr. John Brown, of Edinburgh, when speaking of Methodist authors, said to us, " Mr. Watson was a prince in Theology; his 'Theological Institutes' is the noblest work in Methodism, and it is truly valuable."

Some readers have expressed themselves as somewhat dis- appointed on accoant of the copious citations with which the " Institutes," especially in the la.tter part of the first volume, abounds. To this complaint. Dr. Jackson, in his Memoirs of Mr. Watson, furnishes a satisfactory reply : — "The complaint rests upon no sohd foundation. It would have been mere affectation and folly for the author to spend his time in original composition, merely to save appearances, when facts and arguments, every way suited to his purpose, were already prepared for him, and were beyond the reach of a considerable part of his readers ; being found only in large and scarce publications. So much extract, however, occasions a degree of inequahty in the style of this part of the work ; and the author, some months before his death, requested his printer, (the late James Nichols, the able translator of the "vorks of Arminius,) to give a modern dress to such of the ex- tracts as were somewhat antiquated in style, so that the inverted commas might be laid aside, and the different authors be simply referred to in the margin. Of course, it was intended that the

A

" God himself is the object of Theology. All other sciences have their objects, noble indeed, and loorthy of the attention of the human mind, and in the consideration of which, time, leisure, and diligence may be occupied. Eut this science is the only one which is occupied about the Beikg of beings and the Cause of causes, the principle of nature, a7id that of grace existing in nature, and by which nature is assisted and surrounded. Hence this object is not only the most worthy, but the most dignified of all, and full of adorable majesty."— AByimivs.

CO]S"TEIs"TS

OF THE

"THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES," WITH REFERENCES TO THE EDITION IN FOUR VOLUMES 12mo., AND VOLUMES IX., X., XI., AND XII., IN MR. WATSON'S COLLECTED WORKS.

PART I . I^IPO' Works,

Vol.1, vol. IX.

CHAPTER I. Pcuje Paje Page

Man a Moral Agent 1 5 II

n.

The Rule which, determines the Quality of Moral Actions a Revelation from God .. . 6 10 12

III. Further Presumptions of a Revelation —

from the Weakness of Human Reason ... I'j 19 12 IV. Further Proofs of the Weakness and Un- certainty of Human Reason 21 24 13

V. Origin of those Truths which are found in

the Writings of the Heathen 31 33 14

VI. The Necessity of Revelation : — State of Re- ligious Knowledge among the Heathen... 61 GO 14 VII. The Necessity of Revelation : — State of

Morals among the Heathen 77 lb 15

vin.

The Necessity of Revelation : — Rehgions of

the Heathen 84 82 10

IX. The Evidences necessary to authenticate a Revelation: — External Evidence ... 101 97 17

X. The Evidences necessary to authenticate a

Revelation: — Internal Evidence 128 121 18

Yl

CONTENTS.

	12mo,	Works,
	Vol.1.	Vol. IX.
XI.	Page	Page	Page
Use and Limitation of Reason in Religion	138	130	19
XII.
Antiquity of the Scriptures	154	145	19
XIII.
Uncorrupted Preservation of the Scriptures	197	184	20
XIV.
The Credibility of the Testimony of the
Sacred Writers	210	195	22
XV.
The Miracles of Scripture	217	202	22
XVI.
Objections to the Proof from Miracles	232	215	23
XVII.
Prophecies of Scripture	262	242	25
XVIII.
Objections to the Evidence from Prophecy	290	267	26
XIX.
Internal Evidence of the Truth of Scrip-
ture:— Collateral Evidence	307	282 ;	27-30
XX.
Miscellaneous Objections answei-ed	356	325	30
PART II.
CHAPTER I.
The Existence of God	398 12mo,	362	35
II.	Vol. II
Attributes of God :— Unity — Spirituality...	1	461	39
III.
Attributes of God : — Eternity, Omnipotence	29	486 Works,	42
IV.		Vol. X.
Attributes of God: — Omniscience V. Attributes of God : — Immutability, Wisdom	56	3	43
98	40	46
VI.
Attributes of God :— Goodness	117	58	48
VII.
Attributes of God : — HoUness	157	94	50

CONTEXTS.

VU

God : — The Trinity in Unity

VIII.

IX.

Trinity : — Scripture Testimony

X. Trinity : — Pre-existence of Christ . XI. Trinity : — Jesus Christ the Jehovah of the Old Testament ...

The Titles of Christ

XII.

12mo, Works,

Vol. II. Vol. X.

Page Page Page 174 109 52

203 135

218 149

233 162 264 189 377 288

393 303 406 315 437 343

54 56

57 60 69

XIII.

Christ possessed of Divine Attributes

XIV. The Acts ascribed to Christ Proofs of his Divinity

XV.

Divine Worship paid to Christ

XVI. Humanity of Christ — Hypostatic Union..

XVII. The Personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost 455 359

XVIII. Fall of Man— Doctrine of Original Sin ... 478 379

and p. 1 in

12mo, Works XIX. Vol. III. Vol. XI

Eedemption :— Principles of God's Moral

Government ... ... ... ... 98 3

XX. Redemption : — Death of Christ Propitiatory 121 23

XXI. Eedemption : — Sacrifices of the Law ... 194 87

XXII. Redemption: — Primitive Sacrifices ... 228 117 102

XXIII. Benefits derived to Man from the Atone- ment:— Justification ... ... ... 286 167 107

XXIV. Benefits derived to Man from the Atone- ment: — Concomitants of Justification ... 378 248 116

Mil CONTENTS.
	l2mo.	AVorks,
	Vol. III. Vol. XI.
XXV.	Page	Page	Page
Extent of the Atonement	406	212,	119
XXVI.
The same Subject, continued	441	304	123
	12mo,
XXVII.	V...1. IV.
An Examination of certain Passages of
Scripture, supposed to limit the Extent
of Christ's Kedemption ...	1	378	135
XXVIII.
Theories which Umit the Extent of the
Death of Christ	30	404 Woi kg.	139
XXIX.		Vol. XII
Redemption: — Further Benefits	138	3	■ 149
PART III.
CHAPTER I.
The Moral Law	1(36	27	1.33
n.
The Duties we owe to God	18.3	44	1.56
III.
The Duties we owe to Grod : — The Lord's
Day	22S	81	161
IV.
Morals: — Duties to our Neighbour	254	103	164

PAET IV. CHAPTER I.

The Christian Church 327 166 173

II. Institutior.s of Christianity : — The Sacra- ments 380 212 178

ni.

The Institutions of the Church :— Baptism 391 222 179

IV. The Institutions of the Church : — The

Lord's Supper 465 286 188

ANALYSIS

OP

WATSON'S THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES.

GENEEAL.DIVISON.

Part I. Evidences, 1

" II. Doctrines, I , „

,^^ ,^ ^of Christianity,

" III. Morals, [

" IV. Institutioks, J

PAET FIRST.

Evidences of the Divine Authority of the

Holy Scriptures.

Outli7ie.

1. Presumptive evidence.

A. That a direct revelation would be made in some way. (Vol. i. pp. 1 — 85.)

B. That it would be made in this way, i. e., in the manner in which Christianity professes to have been revealed. (Pp. 85 — 96.)

IT. Direct evidence, preliminary to the introduction

of which are considered — (L) The kind and degi-ee of evidence necessary to

authenticate a revelation. (Pp. 97 — 129.) (2. ) The use and limitation of reason in religion ;

B

10 ANALYSIS.

(pp. 130-144;) after whicli the positive evidences ai'e introduced nnder the following heads : — (T.) External EvIDE^■CE.

I. Preliminaries.

(A.) Antiquity of the Scriptures. (Pp. 145-183.) (B. ) Uncorrupted preservation of the books of

Scripture. (Pp. 184—194.) C. Credibility of the testimony of the sacred ■writers; (pp. 195-201;) which being estab- lished, of course prove the genuineness and authenticity of the books of Scripture.

II. Argument.

(A.) From miracles.

^eaZ^ miracles were wrought. (Pp. 202-214.) Objections to the proof from miracles answered. (Pp. 215-241.) (B.) From prophecy.

Real predictions were delivered. (Pp. 242-

266.) Objections to the proof from prophecy answered. (Pp. 267-281.) (II.) Internal evidence.

(A) The excellence and beneficial tendency of the

(Zoc^rmes of Scripture. (Pp. 282-309.) (B.) J/orfflHendency of the Scriptures. (Pp. 310-

316.) (C.) >Sf>/Ie and manner of the sacred writers. (Pp. 317, 318.) (III.) Collateral EVIDENCE. (Pp. 319-324.)

And finally — (IV.) Miscellaneous objections are answered. (Pp. 325-361.)

MAN A MORAL AGENT, 11

PEESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE.

A. Presumptive evidence that a direct revelation looidd

he made in some loay. I. Man a moral agent. (Chap. i. vol. 1.)

a.) Man has always been considered capable of performing moral actions ; which are — voluntanj actions, having respect to some rule.

b.) Antecedent to human laws, there must have been a perception of the difference of moral actions, because many actions would be judged good or evil, were all civil codes abolished.

c.) This jierception may be traced, in part, to experience and observation of the injurious tendency of vice, and the beneficial results of virtue ; — but

d.) It cannot be so traced enftVe/?/. There has been, among all men, a constant reference to the will of God, or of supposed deities, as a rule to determine the good or evil of the conduct of men.

We derive from these considerations two

weighty presumptions : supposing the Theist

to grant the existence of a Supreme Creator, of

infinite power, wisdom, etc. : —

First, (from a, b, and c,) That those actions which

men consider good, have the implied sanction of

the will oi the Creator. Second, That they were originally, in some way,

enjoined as his law, and their contraries prohibited.

(Pp. 5-9.)

12 MOKAL ACTIONS.

II Tee rule which determines the quality

* OF MORAL actions MUST BE PRESUMED TO BE

MATTER OF REVELATION FROM GoD. (Chap, ii. vol. 1.)

a.) Creation implies government — and govern- ment implies law — which must be revealed ; — and a revelation of the Divine will may be made either, (1.) By significant actions, or (2.) By dii'ect communication in language. The Tlieist admits that (1) has been done. The Christian admits (1) and (2) both : declaring (1) to be insufficient, and the question is, On which side is the presumption of truth 1

b.) We assert that natural indications are insuf- ficient for the formation of a virtuous cha- racter, and illustrate the deficiency by reference to temperance — j ustice — benevolence — worship — prayer — a future state, the pardon of sin. (Pp. 10-18.) III. A is proved by the weakness of husian

REASON AND THE WANT OF AUTHORITY IN

HUMAN OPINIONS. (Chap. iii. vol. 1.) a.) Granting that a perfect reason could deter- mine the moral quality of actions, — Yet (1.) That perfect reason is not to be found ; (2.) Men differ greatly in their reasoning pow- ers ; (3.) ]\len are not sufficiently contempla- tive, nor sufficiently honest, for such inquiries ; (4.) We find that men bring down the 7-ule to the 2:>ractice, rather than raise the ^;?'ac^tce to the rule, b.) But supposing truth discovered, and intellec-

HUMAN REASON. 13

tiial tnen appointed to teach, others, what authority have they 1

1. We answer a jviori, no other authority than the opinion of a teacher, — which might be received or not.

2, And facts are sufficiently in proof of this. — Cicero, etc. (Pp. 19-23.)

c.) But reaso^i, alone, cannot determine the moral quality of actions. (Chap. iv. vol. 1.) (1.) i^eason is an erring faculty, and its exer- cise is limited by our knoioledge. (2.) It is on« thing to assent to a doctrine when discovered and proposed, and aTiotlier to make such dis- covery originally. (3.) The principles of what is called natural religion command the assent of reason, but the question is, Whena came they ? (4.) Certainly they were never men- tioned as discoveries either by the -acred writers, or the sages of antiquity, d.) In fact, sober views of great religious truths have been found noiohere, since patriarchal times, save in the sacred writings : — thus, (1.) Existence of God. Ancient doubts. Mod- em Budhists. (2.) Creation of moiter. Eternity of matter was the doctrine of the Ionic, Platonic, Italic, and Stoic Schools. Aristotle. (3.) Individuality of the human souL (4.) Doctrine of ProvifZence. The ancients be- lieved in conflicting and subordinate gods. (5.) Immortality of the human soul. Ancient doctrine of absorption. Modern Hindoo no- tion oi annihilation. (Pp. 24—32.)

1^ HUMAN OPINIONS.

e.) Those truths which are found in the writings and religious systems of the heathen can be traced to revelation. (Chap. v. vol. 1.)* (1.) There was a substratum of common opinions among all early nations, in regard to facts and doctrines which are contained in the Old Testament : — thus a golden age, sacrifice, formation of the world, etc, (Pp. 33-37.) (2.) Adam, a moral agent, must have had in- struction from the Creator, and his know- ledge might easily have been transmitted to Noah's time, for Methuselah was contemporary with both Adam and Noah. Then after the flood, the system would of course be propa- gated by Noah's descendants, and we find it received in th.Q {sixnilj oi Abraham. Subse- quently it was doubtless vastly diffused by the dispersions and restorations of the children of Israel. Nine conclusions. (Pp. 37-46.) IV. A is proved by the necessity of revelation, — (Chap. vi. vol. 1.) — evinced, a.) By the state of religious hnowledge among the heathen, with regard to t\\Q first principles of religion : —

1, God. The notion of subordinate deities obtained equally with that of one supreme God. The eternity of matter and its per- versity not to be controlled even by God, were favourite opinions.

* The additional notes to this chapter are very valuable, (Pp. 47 — 59,) and should be studied carefuHj', in connection with the text.

STATE OF MORALS. 15

2. Providence. U admitted at all, the doctrine was vitiated and counteracted by other opinions. The Epicureans denied it : Plato Joined fortuiie. with God, and Polytheism gave up the world to opposing and conflict- ing powers.

3. Future state. Oriental doctrines of tram- migration and absorption. Periodical de- struction and renovation, Aristotle, Democ- ritus, Heraclitus, and Epicurus either denied or refused to countenance the doctrine of the soul's existence after death. Cicero doubted ; Pliny and Caesar denied itj Seneca wavered. (Pp. GO-74.)

h,) By the stcde of morals among the heathen,

(Chap. viL vol. 1.)

(1.) Their moral and religious systems were doubtless from a common source.

(2.) But the o'ldes had become involved in obscurity, their injunctions lacked authorityt and the general practices of men had become vicious. The subject is illustrated by ad- verting to certain precepts of the second table, and showing that, although heathen nations have been sensible of the obligation of these, among all of them the ruh has been perverted in theory and violated in practice.

1. Murder and suicide. Disregai-d of life among the heathen. Gladiatorial combats. Treat- ment of slaves and children.

2. Haired arid revenge. Cicero- Aristotle.

16 SUPERNATUEAL TRUTH.

3. Adultery^ divorce^ fornication, etc. Laws in regard to these, though acknowledged, yet grossly violated among heathen nations, even down to crimes Tza^a <pvaiv.

4. Theft and rapine. Honesty almost unknown among the heathen.

5. Lying. Menander. Plato. India. (Pp. 75-81.)

c.) By the fact, that their prevailing religions were destructive of morality. (Chap. viii. vol. 1.)

1. Their gloomy superstitions fostered ferocity and cruelty. Human sacrifices among the ancients, and also in modern Africa, Asia, and America.

2. Their religions were as productive of im- purity as of bloodshed. Roman Floralia. Mysteries. Indian temple worship.

3. The grossest ignorance on Divine subjects universally prevailed. (Pp. 82-85.)

B. Presrumptive evidence that a direct revelation would be made in this way : i.e., in the man- ner in which Christianity professes to have been revealed. a.) A supernatural manifestation of truth should,

1. Contain explicit information on those sub- jects which are most important to man ;

2. Accord with the principles of former reve- lations ;

3. Have a satisfactory external authentication ;

4. Contain provisions for its effectual promul- gation.

DIKECT E"\r[DENCE. 17

b.) All these conditions are fulfilled in the Sanp- tures.

1. They give information as to God, jian, a Mediator, Providence, future state, etc.

2. Three distinct religious systems, the Patri- archcd, Mosaic, and Christian, harmonize in their doctrines and objects.

3. The Mosaic and Christian revelations profess to rest on external evidence.

4. Provision made (1.) By writing. (2.) By commemorative rites, etc. (3.) By accred- ited teachers. (Pp. 85-96.)

II. DIEECT EVIDENCE.

Two preliminaries. (Chap. ix. vol 1.) (I.) The evideiices necessary to autJienticate a revela- tion,

1. External, principal and most appropriate : if no: to the immediate recipient, at least to those to whom he communicates it. There are two branches of the external pi'oof, Miracles and Prophecy. (Pp. 97-99.) (a.) Miracles.

1. Definition. 1.) Popular. 2.) Philosophic. 3.) Theological. (Pp. 100, 101.)

2. Possibility oi miraicles. (Pp. 102,103.)

3. Distinction between real miracles and prO' digies. Criteria. (P. 104.)

18 MIRACLES.

4. Necessity of connection between even such real miracles^ the Tnessenger, and his message. (Pp. 106-107.)

5. Humian testimony siofficient to establish the credibility of miracles. (P. 108.)

(1.) Hume's objection.

(2.) Replies to it by Paley — Bishop of Llan- daff — Campbell. See also Wardlaw, and Babbage's Ninth Bridgewater Treatise.

6. Fitness of the evidence of miracles, as a ground of universal belief. (P. 117.)

(b.) Prophecy.

1. Possibility not to be denied. Dilemma.

2. Adequateness 3iS 3b j)roof. (Pp. 117-120.) 3. Internal. (Chap. x. vol. 1.)

(a.) Nature of the evidence.

(b, ) Its rank in the scale of evidence.

1 Not necessary : sufficient proof without it : but nevertheless useful.

2 Not pi'imary, but confirmatory. The con- trary opinion not only supposes us capable of judgingyW^y of the doctrines revealed, but also renders the external testimony compara- tively nugatory. Two sources of this error. (1.) The notion that miracles might be

wrought to attest unworthy doctrines. (2.) A confounding of the rational with the authenticating evidence.

3. Not so loell adapted to the mass of mankind as external evidence. (Pp. 121-129.)

3 Collateral. Nature of ' the evidence stated. (P. 129.)

THE SCEIPTUEES, 19

(II.) The use and limitation of reason in religion. (Chap. xi. vol 1.) (a.) Use of reason in regai'd to revelation.

1. To investigate the evidences of its divine authority.

2. To interjyret the meaning of the record, (b.) Limitation.

1. It must not decide in cases where the nature of things is not known, either by or without revelation.

2. The things compared must be of the same nature, and the comparison must be made in the same respects. (Pp. 130-144.)

These preliminaries being settled, we now proceed to adduce positive evidences, of which there ai-e three heads : —

I. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

(I.) Preliminaries.

(A.) Antiquity op the Scriptures. (Chap. xii.

vol. 1.)

a.) The Persons who were the immediate instru-

ments oj" these revelations, existed at the periods

assigned. Proved,

(1.) By the very existence of 1.) The Jewish

polity; and 2.) The Christian religion. (2.) By the testimony of ancient authors. 1. As to Moses. Manetho, Apollonius, Strabo, Justin, Pliny, Tacitus, Juvenal, Longinus, Diod. Siculus, etc.

20 PRESERVATION.

2. As to Christ. Suetonius, Tacitus. {Pp. 145-150.) b.) The Books which contain the doctrines are of the date assig^ied to them. Proved, (1.) As to Old Testament.

1. By the langviage in which it is "written.

2. By Josephus' Catalogue.

3. By the Septuagint, and by the Samaritan Pentateuch.

4. By Leslie's Argument, which gives four rules for determining the truth of matters of fact, all which are applied with success to the Old Testament : —

(1) The matter of fact must be cognizable by the senses.

(2) The matter of fact must be publicly done.

(3) The matter of fact must be comme- morated by monuments and outward actions,

(4) Which must date from the time of the matters of fact. (Pp. 150-160.)

(2.) As to jVew Testament.

1. By Leslie's Argument, as before.

2. By intei-nal evidence fi'om the narration itself.

3. Testimony of adversaries. Celsus, Por- phyry, HiERocLEs, Julian.

4. Quotations by subsequent authors, from the apostles downward. (Pp. 161-183.)

(B.) UnCORRUPTED PRESERVATION OF THE BOOKS

OF Scripture. (Chap. xiii. vol. 1.)

UNCOERUPTED. 21

a.) The Boohs are substantially the same as

when written. Proved, (I.) As to Old Testament. By the list of Jo-

sephus, the Septuagint, and the Samaiitan

Pentateuch. (2.) As to Xew Testament. By the catalogues

of Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, etc., from A. D.

^30, downward, b.) But it can he shown also, that they have de- scended to us without any material alteration

whatever. (1.) As to Old Testament.

1. Before the time of Christ, they were se- cured from alteration by their being generally known, — by the jealousy of the Samaritans, — by the public reading on the sabbath, — by the Chaldee Paraphrases, and the Greek version.

2. After the birth of Christ, by miitual jealousy of Jews and Christians, and the general diffusion of the books.

3. All this is confirmed by the agreement of the manuscripts in all important respects. (Pp. 184-190.)

(2.) As to N^ew Testament.

1. From their contents. Same facts and doctrines.

2. Impossibility of corriqytion because of the general knowledge of the books, and mutual restraints of orthodox and heretics, Eastern Western churches.

3. Prom the agreement of the manuscripts.^

^2

MIKACLES.

4. From the agreement of ancient versions and quotations. (Chap. 190-194.) (C.) Credibility of the testimony of the sacred WRITERS. (Chap. xiv. voh 1.) (1.) That they were persons of virtuous and sober

character was never denied. (2.) They were in circumstances to know the truth of what they relate. They could rtot be de- ceived, for instance, as to the feeding of the four thousand, gift of tongues, etc. (3.) They had no interest in making good the story. Their interests all lay in the opposite direction. (4.) Their account is circumstantial, and given in a learned age, when its falsity might easily have been detected. (Pp. 195-201.) (II.) After these preliminaries, establishing the genu- ineness and authenticity of the books, it remains now to present the argument. (A.) From miracles. (Chap. xv. vol. 1.) (1.) Their reality proved.

(a.) Definition of a triie miracle, (b.) Claims of Scriptural miracles to be con- sidered true, illustrated —

1. As to those of J/oses. Darkness, destruc- tion of first-born in Egypt, passage of the Red Sea, falling of manna. (Pp. 202-207.)

2. As to those of Christ. Illustrated espe- cially by the greatest miracle, the resur- rection, in regard to which it is shown,

a. That Christ ivas really dead.

b. That the body was missing. That

OBJECTIONS. 23

c. Every attempt to account for (b,) except on the supposition of a resurrection, is absurd, and

d. That the story was confirmed hy the subsequent testimony and conduct of the disciples. (Pp. 207-214.)

(2.) Objections a^iswered. (Chap. xvi. vol. 1.) (a.) It is asser-ted that miracles Imve been

wrought in suppoi't of other doctrines. I. On the authority of Scripture. For, it is said, (1.) That Scripture gives instances of such : e.g., oi magicians in opposition to Moses, and the raising of Samuel by the witch of Endor, etc.

1. As to the, feats of the magicia-ns, it is to be noticed, 1. That they were professed wonder-workers; 2. That they could appear to imitate but three of Moses' miracles; 3. That their works were wrought to maintain the equality of their idols with Jehovah. Two explanations are given.

1. Some suppose these were exercises of legerdemain.

2. Our author admits a supernatural evil agency : which is not unreason- able, ina.«much as the design was, not to disprove the divinity of Jehovah, but to maintain their own authority:.

2. As to tJie witch of Endor, and Satan's bearing our Lord through the air: —

24 FAIiSE MIEACLES.

Granting these events to liave been miraculous, it cannot be sliown that they were wi'ought in opposition to a divine mission. ("Pp. 215-221.) (2.) That Scripture assumes the 2>ossihility

of such. Deut. xiii. 1 ; Matt. xxiv. 24 j

2 Thess. ii. 8, 9.

1. Notice the nature and. ivorJc of Satan. — Six points.

2. Observe the limitations of the power of evil spirits, four points, (1.) No work of creation. (2.) No power of life and death. (3.) No knowledge of future events. (4.) No certain knowledge of the thoughts of men. (Pp. 221-225.)

3. Apply these considerations to show (1.) That no rea^ miracle can be per- formed in opjDOsition to the truth. Illustrated,

(1. ) By the case of the Egyptian magi. (2.) By that of false Christs, etc. (2.) Nor any lyi'ophecy be uttered im- plying certain knowledge of future events : though great sagacity may be exhibited. N.B. No evidence recorded in favour of falsehood that might not readily be refuted on the spot by counter evidence. (Pp. 225-231.) II. On the authoi'ity of profane writers. Miracles of Aristeas, Pythagoras, Alexander

PROPHECY. 25^

of Pontus, Vespasian, Apollonius Tyan- asus, and the Komish C Lurch, (a.) These pretended miracles are all

deficient in evidence. (h.j Thej are insulated and destitute of any reasonable object : while the miracles of Sciipture combine for the establishment of one system. (Pp. 232-241.) (B.) From prophecy. (Chap. xvii. vol. 1.) ( 1 . ) Their reality proved .

(a.) Preliminary considerations.

1. The instances are numerous.

2. Many have clearly come to pass.

3. They all tend to one great end.

4. This last characteristic ia peculiar to tlie Scripture prophecies.

5. There is no obscurity in them that can be just ground for cavil.

6. The double sense of prophecy, in which one event is typical of another, so far from being an objection, is a confirmation of the infinite wisdom that inspired it.

(b.) Examples of such predictions. (Pp. 242-249.)

1. The prediction to Adam of the protracted conflict between the serpent and the seed of the woman, with the ultimate triumph of the latter.

2. Jacob's prediction respecting the time when Shiloh should come.

3. Predictions respecting tlie Jewish nation :

c

ORACLES.

— (1.) Their apostasies. (2.) Tbeir punisliments. (3.) Their restoration. (Pp. 250-2(;0.) 4. Predictions respecting the Messiah.

(I.) U|twaid of one /iwwcjrec? distinct pre- dictions as to his birth, life, sufferiugs, death, and resurrection. (2.) Wonderful prophecy, especially, con- tained in Isaiah liii. (Pp. 261-266.) (2.) Objections answered. (Chap, xviii. \<>\. 1.) (a.) It is objected to some of the prophecies, that they were written after the event. This cannot be sustained: illustrated as to Isaiah and Daniel. (b.) The Scripture p^'ophedes are compared to tJie heatlien oracles. Let us take the Delphic oracle for an example. Of this we say,

1. None of its predictions ever wevd deep into futurity.

2. Its responses were ambiguous.

3. Venal and servile, it was easily corrupted. None of which can be alleged of Scripture prophecies.

(c.) The character of the prophets i.s aspersed. E.g , BalaHm, and Jewish false pt ophets. Singular proceeding to condemn the true on account of theya^se, who were notieeeived by tlie Jews themselves. (Pp. 267-272.)

(d.) It is asserted that some of the prophecies ha/oe failed.

PROPHECY. 27

1. Promise to Abraliam. Ans. But this was fulfilled in the time of David and Solomon.

2. Promise of great wealth and dominion to the Jews. (Voltaire.) Ans- Civilhle^sings are promised conditionally, and spiritual blessings are generally predicted under figures of speech.

3. Prefliction of Isaiah to Ahaz. Ans. This was ftilfillecL

4. Prophecy of Jeremiah to Zedekiah. Ans. This was fulhlled in all particulars, as far as we know.

5. That of Ezekiel respecting the desolation of -Kgypt. Ans. We know not that it has noi been fulfilled : and the very same pro- phecy contains a prediction that has been remarkably accomplished.

(e.) Sundry actions of the prophets have been ridicaled. Ans. They were appropriate to the occasions, and in accordance with pri- mitive and Oriental usage. (Pp. 273-281.)

II. INTEENAL EVIDENCE.

Notice two preliminaries. (Chap. xix. vol. 1.) (1.) The distinction between rational ajid authen- ticating evidence.

28 DOCTEINES OF SCRIPTURE.

(2.) Those doctrines ■which have no rational evidence do not suffer in authority on that acco^unt. (Pp. 282-283.) We have now to consider, (A.) The excellence and beneficial tendency

OF THE doctrines OF SCKlPTUKE. Among

which are

a.) The existence of God — his character, attri- butes, etc.

b.) The moral condition of man : —

1. The race is absolutely ^-dcious.

2. And vicious in consequence of a moral t'lint in their nature : for the evil is not to be ac- counted for by the influence of ediication or example, as some vainly say.

3. The divine government, in regard to man, is of a mixed character. (Pp. 283-288.)

c.) The atonement. Doctrine much objected to, as being deficient in rational evidence. The Christian doctrine is grounded on —

1. Future punishment, which is

2. Unlimited, for wliich two arguments may be assigned. (1 ) Present analogies. (2 ) Doc- trine of immortality.

3. The problem of the possibility of pardon, with- out such a relaxation of the divine government as would effectually nullify it, can only be solved by this great doctrine. Repentance and reformation are not only unavailing, but would, from the nature of the case, be im- practicable. Illustration, Zaleucus. (Pp. 288-302.)

DIVINE INFLUENCE 29

d.) Doctrine of the influence of tJie Holy Spirit.

1. 'So physiccd t)bjectioa to this doctrine,

2. No 7noral objection. Free agency not destroyed.

3. It is adapted to the moral destitution of man.

4. It presents an affecting vietv of the divine character.

5. It elevates our aspirations, and encourages us to the periormance of the most difficult duties. (Pp. 302-3U7.)

This branch of the internal evidence may be

properly closed by noticing e.) The wonderful agreement in doctrine among the wriiers, though numerous, and writing at different periods. (Pp. 3u7-309.) (B.) Moral tendency of the Scriptures.

a.) It has been asserted that the Bible has an immoral tendency, because it records the fail- ings of some of its leading characters ! Auswered : — These fi-ailties are always re- corded for admonition ; illustrated by David's case. N. B. Tlie moral characters of Blount, Tindal, Hobbes, V^oltaire, Paine, etc., not very honourable to the cause which they espoused.

b.) Compare Fag an moraliiy toith thai of the Scriptures.

1. Great moral qualities attributed to the divine Bein^ were abstract with them ; but in Christ they are all exemplified.

2. No authority for m/yral rules among Pagans.

30 CHRISTIANITY.

3. Their apprehension of moral principles was indiaiinct.

4. The sa'me tvriters among heathen are of a lower grade than among Christians.

5. Beauty and symmetry of the Christian moral*. Wesley, Taylor.

(C.) Style and manner of the sacred writers.

a.) Style, various, as it should be, being the produc- tions of different individuals, in different ages. Marsh. Michaelis.

b.) Manner, artless and natural, possessing all the simplicity of truth.

«.) Incidental coincidences. (Pp. 310-318.)

III. COLLATEEAL EVIDENCE.

(A.) Marvellous diffusion of Christianity, espe- cially during the first three centuries, con- firmed by Tacitus, Pliny, Justin, Tertullian, Origen, until A.D. 300, when Christianity heca/me the established religion of the Roman empire

(B.) Actual effect produced upon mankind. Moral victories over idolatry ; infanticide ; con- dition of woman; slavery, etc. (Pp. 319-324.)

IV. MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS ANSWEEED.

Preliminary remarks. (Chap. xx. Vol. I.) 1. Objections are often raised in great ignorance of the volume itself.

INFIDEL OBJECTIONS. 31

2. FTasly theories have been constnicted. which, have beeu found or thou.ht to contradict the S<ripture& ; thus Deism arose in the sixteenth ceuiury in Fiance, and iu the seventeenth in England.

3. HekBert, FTobbes, Shaftesbury, and Hume, the chi«f English infidels ; and the great prin- ciple of error with them all, is that of Her- bert of Clierl)ury : — "fAe sufficiency of our natural faculties to form a religion for ourselves, and to decide upon the merits of revealed truth." (Pp. •62b-6-21.)

I. Objections on moral grounds.

1. The conmKxrt/l to tJie Israelites to exterminate

the CauaauiteS. Ans. It cannot be pvoved inconsistent with the character of God to employ human agents^ aa well as natural, in such a work.

2. Law in Deuteronomy auihorizing parents to accuse

their children, etc. Ans. In fact ibis was a merciful regulation.

3. Intentional o^ering of Isaac by Abraham.

Ans. (1.) A biaham had no doubt of the Divine coniruatid.

(2.) He obeyed, in faith that God would raise his son.

4. Indelicacy and immodesty have been charged

upou the Scriptures. Ana, (1.) These sins are everywhere denounced as offensive to God. (2.) The passages alluded to are generally prohibitions of crime.

32 OBJECTIONS.

(3.) The simplicity of early manners is to be considered. Several others might be adduced, but a little skill in the languages and antiquities of Scripture will always clear up the main difficulties. (Pp. 328-331.) 11. Objections on philosophical grounds.

1. Infidels are fond of contrasting — what they call

— the simplicity of the book of nature with the Tnystery of the book of God. Anf!. (1.) Many doctrines and duties are com- prehensible. (2.) Facts may be revealed and yet be incom- prehensible : e.g., it is revealed that God is omnipresent, but not how he is so, etc, (3.) But even in their boasted natural philosophy, revelation and mystery go hand in hand. The real causes of the phenomena named gravitation, cohesion, evaporation, etc., are unknown ; and even in pure mathematics, such incomprehen- sibles occur.

2. From the minuteness of the earth as contrasted with the vastness of the material universe, infidelity argues the insignificance of man ; thence the improbability of redemption.

Answered, (1.) By Dr. Beattie. (2.) Bj Gran- ville Penn. (Pp. 331-338.)

3. Objections are brought against the Mosaic chronology from two sources :

(1.) The chronology of ancient nations. (2.) The structure of the earth.

As to the (1) class, these ancient chronologies

GEOLOGY. 33

— the Hindoo, Chinese, and Egyptian, which make the greatest pretensions to antiquity, are rapidly lowing character. No reliance whatever is placed upon them. As to the (2 ) geological objection, two solutions have been oifered.

1, That the days of the Mosaic history are indefinite periods.

2. That an indefinite time elapsed between the beginning spoken of in (ienesis verse 1, and the 'work of the six days.

To both these solutions our author objects, and pre- fers the views of Mr. Granville Penn.*

4. It is objected tliat light loas created on the Jirst

day, and the sun not until iXie fourth. Several solutions.

5. Objeciions to the Mosaic account of the deluge.

6. Objections as to number of animals taken into the ark with Noah. (Pp. 339-361.)

*A8 the "Theological Institutes" were written before the advanced discoveries in geology, the student may consult Dr. John Pye Smith's and Professor Hitebcock's woiks on Scripture and Gcijlogy; also Field's Student's Handbook of Christian Theology, Chap. IV., and the articles "Creation," "Eaeth," " Aek," and " Flood," in Mr. Bastow's Bible Dictionary.

34 ANALYSIS.

PART SECOND.

Doctrines of the Holy Scriptures. Outline. I. Doctrines relating to God.

(A.) Existence:	(Ch. i.)
(B.) Attributes:	(Ch. ii-vii)
(C.) Persons :
(I.) Doctrine of Ti-inity,	(Ch. viii, ix.
(II.) Divinity of Christ,	(Ch. x-xv.)
(III.) Humanity of Christ,	(Ch. xvi.)
(IV.) Personality and Deity of the
Holy Ghost,	(Ch. xvii.)

II. Doctrines relating to man.

(A.) Original sin : (Ch. xviii.)

(B.) Redemption :

(I.) Principles of, (Ch. xix-xxii.)

(II.) Benefits of, (Ch. xxiii-xxix.)

EXISTENCE OF GOD. 85

I. DOCTEINES EELATING TO GOD. (Ch. i-xvii.)

(A.) Existence of God. — (Ch. i. vol. 1.)

(I.) Source of the idea.

I. From the sacred writings.

1. From the names of God as recorded in Scripture :

2. Fioni the actions which the Scriptures ascribe to him :

3. Fi'om the attributes with which they invest him. (Pp. 362-3G6.)

II. From the sarred writings alone.

1. The language <if the Christian philosophers, in regard to the Deity, is vt^ry ditt'erent from the inconsistent aud grovelling views of the sages of antiquity : e. g., Barrow, Pearson, Lawson, and Neuoton, are quDted.

2. The question (if man's ability to discover the existence of a first cause cannot be determined by matter of fact.

3. Nor can the abstract probability of such dis- covery be sustained. (Pp- 367-373.)

(1.) Uneducated man is acreatuie of appetite: but he cannoi be educated withoutcivilizatioa and society : — these have never existed, and we may safely s;iy, can never exist without a religious basis : but by the hypothesis, that basis, — the idea of God, is wanting.

36 CAUSE AND EFFECT.

(2.) Clear as the argument a posteriori now appears to us, yet all history shows that the eternity of matter has been an impassable barrier in the way of human reasoning, unaided by revelation, in the attempt to establish a Divine existence. (P. 377.) (3.) The doctrine of innate ideas, according to our author, is exploded. (P. 378.^ (IT.) Proofs.

I. Preliminary observations.

(a.) On the relation of cause and effect,

1. The principle is, that nothing exists or comes to pass without an efficient cause. (Pp. 379-380.)

2. Hume, probably following Hobbes, objects to this principle on the ground, that what we suppose to be necessary connections, in nature, are or may be only habitual sequences, and that we cannot demonstrate them to be otherwise.

3. Answered by Dugald Stewart, who admits Hume's doctrine indeed, but nullifies its evil results, by his distinction between efficient and physical causes. (Pp. 381-384.) But

4. Our author supposes the true state of the case to be

(1.) That there are efficient causes and that the relation between them and their effects is necessary.

(2.) That there are physical causes, the re- lation between which and their effects is Tiecessary in this sense, — that God has

INTELLIGENCE. 37

established a certain order in natnre, by

which his own efficiency exerts itself.

This is a very different notion Jroni the

unsatisfactory one of habitual sequence.

(b.) On the distinction between the argument a

priori and a posteriori. Superiority of the

latter in this case. (Pp. 385-387.)

II. Proof of the existence of God.

1. Locke's argument. " I exist : I did not always exist : whatever begins to exist must have a cause : that cause must be adequate : this ade- quate cause is unlimited : it must be God."

2. Howe's argument : the same, but more ex- panded, thus :

(1) Somewhat hath existed from eternity: hence (2) must be uncaused: hence (3) in- dependent : hence (4) necessary : hence (5) self-active, and hence (6) originally vital, and the source of all life. (Pp. 387—393.)

III. Proof of the intelligence of God.

1. Dr. Sam. Clarke's argument from the intelli- ligence of man, and the variety, order, exceUence, and contrivance of things : and especially from the existence of moi^or^. (Pp. 394—400.)

2. This last — motion, expanded, from Hov)e's Living Temple. (Pp. 401-2.)

3. The basis of natukax theology as found in Howe's Living Temple, — " Whatever exists, with the marks of vjisdom and design upon it, had a wise and designing cajse." (P. 403.) Illustrations,

(1.) A watch, present d to an obsei'ver for the first time. (Pp. 407-408.)

88 ATHEISM ABSURD.

(2.) Much more, tlie heaverdy bodies exhibit

wisdom and contrivance, (Pp. 409-410.) (3.) 'V\\e human fratne. especially.

1. The double members and tlieir uses.

2. The eye with its curious optical mechan- ism.

3. The spine : and besides the frame of the body. (Pp. 410-417.)

(4.) Its animal functions^ and tliose of teiTes- trial creatures :— (Pp. 417-420.)

1. Growth.

2. Nutrition.

3. Spontaneous motion.

4. Sensation.

(5.) Intellectual powers of man. (P. 421.) 4. The instances of the watch, the eye, the double organs, and the spine, largely illustrated by quotations from Pa ley. (Pp. 422-441.) See also Lord Brougham's Notes to Paley's Natural Theology. IV. Proof of the personality of God. (Pp. 442- 446.) (III.) Remarks.

I. A bsurdity of A theism,.

1. As to the eternity of the world.

2. As to the eternity of unorganized matter.

3. Some modern schemes of Atheism, : — (1.) B'ltfon's organic molecules.

(2.) The system of appetencies. No other answer necessary ihan that these schemes are entirely wanting in evidence. (Pp. 446- 452.)

II. Cha/racter of the argument a priori.

A PKIORI ARGUMENT. 39

1. It is unsatis''actory and tends to lead men away from the sure argument, pointed out by Scrip- ture, from " the things which do appear. ^^

2. The existence itself of a supreme B.eing can hardly be shown by this method. Indeed, even Dr. S. Clarke first proves the existence of " one unchangeable and independent Being," a posteriori. See also Wardlaw's Theology.

3. Some objections to Dr. S. Clarke's vievv ot the necessary existence of the supreme Being.

The being of God is necessary, because it is un- derived, not underived because it is necessary. (Pp. 453-460.)

(B.) Attributes of God. (Ch. ii. — vii.)

Unity. (Ch. ii. vol. 1.)

(I.) Scriptural testimony. Deut. vi. 4 ; iv. 35, etc.

1. The Scriptural notion is, that God is a pure simple being : so one, that there are no other gods : so one, that there can he no other gods.

2. If we admit the Scriptures, we admit a Deity : if we admit one God, we exclude all others. (Pp. 461-462.)

(II.) Evidence from reason.

1. A priori argument is here unobjectionable, if logical.

(1.) Dr. Clarke's shown to be useless. (2.) Wollaston's, Wilkins', and Pearson's argu- ments stated.

40 SPIEITUALITY.

(3.) The best argument of tLe kind, is that from tlie idea of absolute perfection. 2. Proofr may be derived also from tlie works

of God. (1.) In the Jiarmony of the nniverse we discern but one Will and one Intelligence, and there- fore hut ( 'ne Bein^. (2.) Uniformity of plan in the universe, is a proof of the unity of God. Illustrations by Paley. (Pp. 462-470.) (Til.) Importarhce of this doctrine.

The unity of God the basis of all true religion. IT. Spirituality.

(I.) Scriptural testimony ; " God is a Spirit." Simi- lar passages abound. The immateriality of the divine Being is important, becnxise of its connec- tion with the doctrine of the immortality of the human soul. (i'p. 470-472.) (II.) Evidence from reason, both as to the spiritual nature of Gou, and the unthinking nature of mat- ter.

1. God is intelligent, therefore God is a spiritual Being, because intelligence is not a property of matt(>r. For

(1.) Unoi-ganized matter is certainly unintelli- gent ; hence, intelligence cannot be an essen- tial propel ty (>f matter : but it is an essential attribute of Deity, hence the Deity cannot be material. (2.) Nor is intelligence the result of material organization, for 1. Vegetables are unintelligent.

SPIRITUALITY. 41

2. "Were intellect constantly conjoined witli animal organization, "we could deny the necessity of such connection, but we deny this supposed constant connection, and thus take away the basis of Priestley's argument. This denial is based upon the following :

a.) The organization of the human frame is often perfect after death. But dead men do not think, b.) The organism of Adam's body was complete before he became " a living soul." (Pp. 472-475.) (3.) But we may be told, that the subject sup- posed in the argument is a living organized being. This introduces a new element, — life, into the argument: but

1. Vegetables live, and yet do not think.

2. The organic life of Bichat is common to animals and vegetables.

3. The animal life is defined by Bichat, Lawrence, and even by Cuviev, to be the " sum total of its functions of a certain class." Absurdity of this shown by quo- tations from Rennell and Barclay.

(4.) Further proofs that matter is incapable of thought, drawn from its essential proper- ties of exte7isian, impenetrability, dimsihility, etc., none of which belong to thought.

(5.) The notions, matter and mind, are merely relative. Beid. Stewart. Immateriality of brutes not denied. (Pp. 475-485.)

42 OMNIPOTENCE.

III. Eternity. (Ch. iii. vol. 1.)

1. Scriptural notion, God had no beginning and shall have no end. " From everlasting to ever- lasting," etc.

2. These representations evidently convey some- thing more than the mere idea of infinite du- ration. Life is essential to God : he lives by virtue of his own nature, which can be said of him alone.

3. Some obscure notions of the eternity prevailed among the heathen, probably derived from the Jewish Scriptures.

4. Doctrine of the Eternal Xoiv repudiated.

( 1 .) Duration, as applied to God, is an extension of the same idea as applied to ourselves.

(2.) The objection to this, — that it would argue imperfection, — arises from the confound- ing succession in tlie duration with change in the, substance.

(3. ) If it be said that succession is only an artifi- cial method of conceiving or measuring dura- tion, it may be answered, that leagues measure the ocean, but leagues are not the ocean, though both leagues and the ocean may actually exist. (Pp. 486-494.) IV. Omnipotence.

(I.) Scriptural testimony.

1. Reasons why this atti'ibute is so much dwelt upon by the sacred writers, — to secure the obedience, worship, and confidence of man.

2. Mode of its exhibition in the Scriptures, (a.) By the fact of creation.

OMNIPRESENCE. 43^

(b.) By the vastness and variety of the works of

God. (c. ) By the ease with which he is said to create

and uphold all things, (d.) By the terrible descriptions given of the

divine power, (e.) By the subjection of all intelligent beings

to his will.

3. The power of all these descriptions lies in their truth.

4. The works of God manifestations, but not the measure of his omnipotence. (Pp. 494- 499.)

(TI.) Only limitation to the divine power: no work- ing of contradictions, or impossibilities. (Pp. 499-501.)

V. Omnipresence.

1. Scriptiiral testimony.

2. Heathen notions of omnipresence : some striking, but all defective.

3. Similar errors pervade the infidel philosophy of modern times.

4. The Scriptural phrases in which this doctrine is conveyed, mast be taken in their common-sense acceptation.

5. Illustrations of this doctrine from the material world, quoted from Amory and Paley.

6. The a ])riori argument stated.

7. The manner in which God is every where present, incomjirehensible. (Pp. 501-510.)

VI. Omniscience. (Ch. iv. vol. 1.)

(I.) Scriiitural statement of the doctrine.

44 OMNISCIENCE.

1. Direct texts : " Great is tlie Lord, his vrnder- standing is infinite," etc.

2. Argument in Pealm xciv., from the communi- cation of knowledge to men, illustrated by a quotation fx-om Tillotson.

3. The sacred writers refer to the works of God for confirmation. (Pp. 510-513.)

(II.) The Pagans had many fine sentiments in re- gard to the divine omniscience, but the moral of the doctrine was wanting. (Pp. 513--514:.) (III.) The docbine of foreknowledge examined. Unquestionably it is a Scriptural doctrine : but from its difficulty, etc., three theories have arisen : (1.) Theory of Chevalier Ramsay. " It is a matter of choice in God, to think of finite ideas." Answer to this theory,

1. God's omnipotence is an infinite capacity, but omniscience actually comprehends all things that are or can be.

2. Choice implies a reason, and that implies knowledge of the things rejected.

3. Some contingent actions have been foreknown by God, and indeed foretold by his prophets. (Pp. 515-517.)

(2.) Theory, " that prescience of contingent events implies a contradiction, hence the absence of such prescience is no dishonour to God." Ans.

(a.) This theory is defective so long as the Scriptures are allowed to contain pi'ophecies of rewardable and punishable actions, such as

FOEEKNOWLEDGE. 45

1. The long course of events connected with the destruction of Babylon.

2. The contingencies involved in the de- struction of Jerusalem.

(b.) The principle, that " certain prescience destroys contingency" cannot be sustained. 1.) The manner of the divine prescience is indeed incomprehensible, but the fad is undeniably asserted iu Scripture : but 2.) The principle itself is founded upon a sophism, which lies in supposing that contingency and certainty are opposed to each other : while in fact they are not ; but contingency and necessity. It is know- ledge and not influence. Opinions of Dr. Sam. Clarke, Dr. Copleston, and C urcelloeus. (Pp. 518-528.) (3.) Theory, "that the foreknowledge of God must be supposed to differ so much from any thing of the kind in ourselves, that no argu- ment respecting it can be grounded on our im- perfect notions:" — maintained by Archbishop King aad Dr. Copleston. Objections to this theory are,

(a.) The difficulty is shifted, not taken away. (b.) These notions are dangerous : — for if, in the language of Archbishop King, " we can have no inoper notion of the faculties we as- cribe to the divine Being," we have no propei" revelation of the divine character at all. (Pp. 529-532. ) But, to examine more minutely, we say that this theory introduces difficulties, instead of removing them; and

46 IMMUTABILITY.

1. It assumes that our notions of God are framed from tlie results of our observation of his works, etc., which is not the case : — they are derived from express revela- tion.

2. We may form a trve notion, though not an adequate one, of the divine perfections. To be incomiirehensihle is not to be unintel- ligible.

3. This theory assumes that the nature of God is esse7itiaU)j different from the spiritual na- ture of maU; which is not the doctrine of Scripture.

4. Wherever the language of Scripture is metaphorical, it is distinctly so : — so that the argument drawn from the ascrijition of bodily functions, and even of human ^>assio«s, to the divine Being fails when applied to intellectual and moral powers.

(c.) "We say then, lastly, that there is no in- congruity between divine prescience and human freedom, unless influence be super- added to necessitate the human will. Quo- tation from Edwards. (Pp. 532-546.)

YII. Immutability. (Ch. v. Vol. 1.)

(I.) Scriptural statement. " Of old thou hast laid," etc. " I am the Lord, I change not :" with par- allel passages.

(II.) Confirmations from observation.

1 . The stability of the general order of nature.

2. The moral government of God, and

WISDOM. 47

(III.) This immutability is not temporary, but a sovereign, essential perfection of the Deity, as we learn from Scripture, He changes not, because he is " the Lord."

(IV.) The divine immutability is not contradicted, but confirmed, by the variety of his ojjerations, regards and affections, toward the same crea- tures under different circumstances. (Pp. 547- 550.)

(V.) Caiitions are necessary against certain spec- ulations on the divine immutability — such as, that there are no emotions and no succession of ideas witli God, — or, according to Eidgeley, that " God's knowledge is independent of the object known."

1. In these, the distinction between things 2^os- sihle and things actual is overlooked.

2. And also the distinction between God's know- ledge of all possible things, and of those things to which he determined, before the creation, to give actual existence. (Pp. 551- 554.)

(VI,) The liberty of God is closely allied to his im- mutability, and a proper idea of this will correct the false notions above alluded to. (Pp.555-556.)

VIII. "Wisdom.

(I.) The Scriptures testify abundantly to the nice application of God's knowledge to secure his own ends.

(II.) A few of the cluxracters of the divine wisdom, as thus exhibited.

48 GOODNESS.

1 . It acts for worthy ends.

2. Its means are simjjle : great effects from few- elements.

3. Variety of equally perfect operation. Eg. (1.) \'ariety of/oivii. (2.) Variety of rnagni- tude.

4. The connection mul dependence of the works of God.

5. The means by which offending men are re- conciled to God, — the most eminent mani- festations of the wisdom of God. (Pp. 556- 564.)

IX. Goodness. (Ch. vi. vol. 1.) (I.) Scriptural testimony.

1. It is goodness of nature, an essential perfection of the divine character.

2. It is efficient and inexhaustible : — it " endureth for ever."

3. The divine Being takes ^^/eas^tre in the exercise of it : — he " delights in mercy."

4. Nothing, capable of happiness, comes from his hand, except in circumstances of positive felicity. (Pp. 565-567.)

(II.) Evidence from the natural and moral world.

(1.) The dark side. 1.) Positive evils on the globe : volcanoes, sterility, etc. 2.) Diseases and sufferings of the hxmian race. 3. ) Suffer- ings and death of animals. (P. 568.)

(2.) The bright side. 1.) Design of every con- trivance essentially beneficial : e.g., teeth are contrived to eat, not to ache. But to this may

OPTIMISM. 49

be objected (1) venomous animals, and (2) animals j^eying upon one another.

As to (1.) So far as the animal itself is con- cerned, the contrivance is good. As to (2.) The following j)oints are to be considered. 1.) Immortality on earth is out of the question. 2.) Is not death in this way better than decay? 3.) The system is the spring of motion and activity to brutes. The bright side. 2.) . The happiness of animal existence. 3.) Many alleviations of positive evils. 4.) Many ills are chargeable upon man's own misconduct. Consider an individual case, — the good circumstances about him far counterbalance all other. (Pp. 569-576.) (3.) The theory of 02)timism : — that the 2yresent system is the best which the nature of things would admit.

1. The very principle of this hypothesis implies an unworthy notion of God : considering it (1) as to natural, (2) as to moral evils.

2. We deny, then, that "whatever is is best." We can not only conceive a better state of things, but can show that the evils of the present state do not 7iecessarily exist. Sin has entered into the world, and God is just, as well as good.

3. The state of the woi-ld exactly answers to tlie Scriptural representations of the relations between man and God. Illustrated by

50 ORIGIN OF EVIL.

quotations from Gisborne : 1.) As to the actual appearance of the globe, 2.) By re- ference to the general deluge. 3.) By the human frame. 4.) By the occupations of man — farmers — shepherds — niineis — manu- facturers— merchants. (Pp. 576-588.) (III.) The origin of evil. There are four leading opinions.

1. Necessity : 2. The Manichean doctrine of duality : 3. The doctrine that God is the author of sin : and 4. That evil is the result of the abuse of moral freedom. 1. Refutes itself: 2. Is now given up: 3. Found among the most unguarded Calvinistic writers, but now generally abandoned : 4. Is the opinion generally adopted, and agrees with the Scriptural statement of the creation and fall of man. (Pp. 588-598.) (lY.) The mercy of God is a mode of his goodness. (Pp. 598-600.)

X. Holiness. (Ch. vii. Vol. 1.)

Preliminary. 1. It is clear that God " loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity." 2. And this from some essential principle of his nature. This principle we call holiness, which exhibits itself in two great branches. (Pp. 601-604.) (I.) Justice. 1. Character of vfhQn jmrticular, {not universal.)

(a.) Legislative, which determines man's duty and bind 3 him to its performance.

JUSTICE AND TEUTH. 51

(b.) Judicial or distributive, whicb respects rewards and punishments : and is either 1) prcemiative, or 2) vindictive, but always impartial.

2. Reconciled with the divine administration.

(a.) By the fact that man is under a dispensa- tion of mercy.

(b.) By the doctrine of general judgment, which is gounded on that of redemption.

3. Inferences.

(a.) That great offenders may prosper in this life, without impeachment of God's govern- ment.

(b.) That God's children may be afflicted and oppressed.

(c.) That an administration of grace may be apparently unequal without injustic'e. But,

(d.) As 7iations have no posthumoas existence, national rewards and punishments have been in all ages visible and striking. (Pp. 604:-Gl 1 .)

(II.) Truth, which in Scripture is contemplated under the two great branches of veracity and faithfulness.

1. His veracity regards his word. No deception heie.

2. H is, faithfulness regards his engagements, whicb never fail.

A few general ascriptions of excellence may here be noticed. 1.) God is jierfect. 2.) God is all- sufficient. 3.) God is unsearchable. Support each by Scriptural passages. (Pp. 611-615.)

52 THE TRINITY.

(C.) Persons of the Godhead. (1.) Doctrine op the trinity. (Cli. viii. ix. Vol. II.)

I. Preliminary remai'ks and explanations.

1 . Tills doctrine cannot be demonstrated either a priori, or a posteriori. Attempts of Poiret, Kidd, etc., noticed. It rests entirely on Scrip- ture.

2. Pretensions to explain this doctrine are highly objectionable.

3. Perhaps it may be admitted, that types and symbols of the mystery of the Trinity are to be found in natural objects.

4. Explanation of the term ^jersow : 1.) Inordi- nary language. 2.) In a strict pJdlosop>hical sense. It is not applied in the latter sense to the divine Being : but the distinct 'persons are represented as having a common foundation in one being : — the manner of the union being in- compreliensible. Objection to the term, as not being Scriptural, answered.

5. Leading differences of opinion among the orthodox. Howe, Waterland, Pearson, Bull. (Pp. 1-7.)

II. Importance of the doctrine stated, chiefly in

answer to Dr. Priestley.

1. The knowledge of God is fundamental to re- ligion.

2. Dr. Priestley allows its necessity " to explain some particular texts." But we can show that these " texts " comprehend a large portion of Scripture.

THE TRINITY. 53

3. Our views of God as the object of our worship are affected.

4. Dr. Priestley objects, " that no fact in nature, nov jyu^'pose in morals, requires this doctrine." 1.) As to the natural world, (1.) It is adapted

to the scheme of orthodox Christianity, and not to Socinianism, which does not admit of redemption. (2.) The duration of the natural world, is another relation to theo- logy. It was made for Christ. 2.) As to morals. (1.) Morals are conformity to a divine law, which must take its character of its author. (2.) Faith is obedience to command, and therefore pai't of morals. (Pp. 7-14.) III. Importance of this doctrine, on broader grounds.

1 . Our love to God, which is the substance of re- ligion, is essentially affected by our views of this doctrine.

2. In other equally essential views, the denial of Christ's divinity essentially alters the Christian, scheme, as —

1.) The doctrine of atonement is denied by So- cinians, though inconsistently admitted by Arians.

2.) Views of the evil of sin are essentially modified.

3.) The character of Christian experience essen- tially changed, as to repentance, faith^ prayer^ love, etc.

4.) The religiotbs aj^ectioas of hope, trust, joy, etc., are all interfered with.

54 THE TRINITY.

5. ) The language of the church of Christ must be altered and brought down to these views. 6.) The doctrine of divine agency must be changed. 3. The denial of the doctrine of the Trinity affects the credit of the Holy Scriptures : for if this doc- trine be not contained in them, their tendency to mislead is obvious. (Pp. 14-24.)

IV. Difficidties are said to attend the reception of this doctrine.

1 . Mere difficulty in conceiving of what is proper to God, forms no objection.

2. No contradiction is implied in this great doc- trine.

3. The Arian and Socinian hypotheses do not relieve us from difficulties. (Pp. 25-26.)

V. Scripture testimony. (Ch. ix. vol. II.) Preliminary, Every argument in favour of the

Trinity flows from the principle of the absolute UNITY of God, which is laid down in the Scrip- tures with the utmost solemnity, and guai-ded with the utmost care by precepts, threatenings, and promises. But in examining what the Scriptures teach concerning this one God, we find that,

A. The very 'tuinies of God have j^lural forms arul

are connected with plural modes of speech. Examples : Deuteronomy vi. 4 ; Elohim, Ado- nim, etc. (Pp. 27-31.)

B. Three persons and three only are sjiohen of in Scrijjture under divine titles.

THE TRINITY. 55

Ex. 1, Solemn form of Jewish benediction. (Num. vi. 24—27.)

2. The vision of Isaiah, with the allusions to it by St. John and St. Paul, in the New- Testament.

3. Vai'iovTS passages in the New Testament might be cited — in which sometimes two., sometimes tJiree, but never more than three persons are spoken of. 1 John v. 7, is laid out of the argument, as uncertain. (Pp. 31-36.)

C. The great pi-oof on which the doctrine rests : — the multiplied instances in which tivo persons are spoken of, as associated with God in his per- fections.

1. The outline of Scriptui-al testimony is given, as to the Son.

2. The same as to the Spirit.

Therefore, as the Scriptures uniformly declare but ONE God, and yet do throughout declare three persons DIVINE, — we harmonize these apparently opposite doctrines in the proposition — The three persons are ONE God. These views are maintained in the ortho- dox church, and are chargeable with no greater mys- tery than is assignable to the Scriptures. We do not give iip the unity of God. The Socinian unity is a unity of one : ours is a unity of tJiree. (Pp. 36-40.) See also Mansell's Limits of Religious Thought Examined, Lecture VI ; and Wardlaw's Systematic Theology.

PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST.

(II.) Divinity of Chuist, (Ch. x.-xv.) proved,

A. By his PRE-EXISTENCE, (Ch. X.)

B. Because he was the Jehovah of

THE Old Testament. (Ch. xi.)

C. Because bivine titles are ascrib- ed TO him, (Ch. xii.)

D. Because divine attributes be- long TO him, (Ch. xiii.)

E. Because divine acts are ascrib- ed TO him, (Ch. xiv.)

F. Because divine worship is paid

TO him, (Ch. XV.)

A. Pre-existence of Christ. (Ch. x. vol. II.) The iwe-existence of Christ, if established, though it does not affect the Arian, destroys the Socinian hypothesis : hence both ancient and modern Socinians have bent all arts of in- tei'pretation against those passages which ex- pressly declare it, of which the following are examples.

1. John i. 15, "He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for he was before me." The Socinians interpret the last clause in the sense of dignity, and not of time. But John uses the same phrase else- where in regard to priorify of time. If the last referred to the dignity of Christ, it would have been «Tt, not nv, — he is, not he was.

THE JEHOVAH. 57

2. The passages whicli express that Chiist came down from heaven.

(1.) The early Socinians supposed that Christ "was translated to heaven after his birth. Unsupported by Scripture.

(2.) The modern Socinians conveniently resolve the whole into figure : — 1 . As- cending into heaven. 2. Coming down from heaven.

3. John vi. 62, " What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?"

4. The phrase, to "be sent from God."

5. John viii. 58, " Before Abraham was, I am."

6. John xvii. 5, " The glory which I had with thee before the world was."

It has thus been shown that Christ had an existence previous to his incarnation, and pre- vious to the very foundation of the world. (Pp. 41-53.)

B. Jesus Christ the Jehovah of the Old Testament." (Ch. xi. vol. II.)

In the Old Testament, we cannot fail to notice the frequent supei'natural appearances to the ancient patriarchs and prophets. The facts cannot be disputed ; and in order to show their bearing upon the question of the divinity of Christ, we have thi-ee propositions to estab- lish :—

F

58 THE ANGEL.

I. The person who made these appearances was truly a divine persok.

1. Proof. He bears the names of the divine Being, and was the object of worship to the Israelites, (1.) Hagar in the wilderness. (2.) Abraham, in the plains of Marare. (3.) Isaac and Jacob. (4.) The same Jehovah visible to Moses, (5.) The same Jehovah attended the Israelites and was the object of worship and of trust.

2. Objections. (1.) This personage is called " the Angel of the Lord." Ans. Angel in a designation of office, not of nature. The collation of a few passages will show that Jehovah and the Angel of the Lord, in this eminent sense, were the same person. (2.) The Arian hypothesis is that the angel was not Jehovah, but Christ, personating the Deity, Shown to be untenable. (3j The Socinian notion is the marvellous doctrine of occa- sional 2^^')'sonality, to use Priestley's term. Mysterious and absurd enough. (Pp. 54-62.)

II. This divine person was not God the Father.

1. The argument from the passage, "• No man hath seen God," etc., is plausible, but cannot be depended upon.

2. The real argument is from the appellation angel (Pp. 62-64,)

III. This divine person was the pi'oniised Messiah, and consequently Jesjs Christ.

( 1 . ) Scriptural proof.

I. Jeremiah asserts, that the new co\e-

THE MESSIAH. 59

nanfc was to be made by the same person who made the old ^^ Behold the days corns" etc.

2. Malachi's striking prediction, " Behold I will send, my messenger" etc. This pro- phecy is expressly applied to Christ, by St. Mark.

3. " The voice of him that crieth.,^^ etc. Here the application of the prophecy was expressly made to our Lord by the Baptist.

4. ^^ Behold a virgin shall conceive,^' etc. " Unto us a child is horn."

5. Psalm IxviiL is applied by St. Paul to Christ.

6. Christ is represented by St. Peter, as preaching by his Spirit in the days of Noah.

7. St. Paul ; 1 Cor., x. 9, " Neither let tis tempi Christ as som.e of them, also tempted."

8. Heb. xii. 25, 26, " See that ye refuse not him that specJceth." (Pp. 65—75.)

(2.) Confiiination by the testimony of the fathers : — Justin Martyr, Irenasus, Tei- tullian, Clemens, Oiigen, Theophilus, Cy- prian, Hilary, and Basil. (Pp. 76-78.) 3.) Two objections to this doctrine from Scrip- ture are easily answered. 1. " God who at sundry times," etc. Ans. We do not allow the occasional manifes- tation of the Father to be recorded in the Old Testament.

60 DIVINE TITLES.

2. " If the word spoken by angels, etc. Here the apostle refers to tlie judicial law which was given through angels. They were not the a^iihors of the law, but the medium of its communication to men. (Pp. 78-80.J

C. Divine titles ascribed to Christ. (Ch. xii.

vol. 11.)

If the titles given to Christ in the Scriptures are such as can designate a divine Being, then is Christ divine, otherwise the Scriptui'es deceive.

I. The title Jehovah.

Instances of this have already been given, and indeed Socinians admit the fact by their attempts to explain it away : — thus Dr. Priest- ley asserts that the name Jehovah is some- times given to places. Miserable pretence. Force of the argument distinctly stated. (Pp. 81-84.)

II. The title Lord, CK-ipiog) which is applied to Christ in the New Testament, is in its highest sense universally allowed to belong to God : — and we can show, that it is applied to Christ in this highest sense.

1. Both by the LXX., and the writers of the New Testament, it is the term by which the name Jehovah is translated.

2. When the title is not employed in the New Testament to render the name Jehovah, it is still manifest, by the context, that the writers considered and used it as a divine title. (Pp. 84-88.)

LOED AND GOD. 61

III. The title God. It is admitted even by So- cinians that Jesus Christ is called God. We have then to show,

1. That in its highest sense, the term God in- volves the notion of absolute divinity. Sii' I- Newton and Dr. S. Clarke consider it a relative term, importing, strictly, nothing more than dominion.

Ans. (1.) By Dr. Waterland. (2.) By Dr. Randolph.

2, That the term is found used of Christ in this highest sense. (Pp. 88-93.))

(I.) Matt i. 23, " Ejia^-uel— God with us." The Socinians object to this passage, 1.) That it is of doubtful authority, — but this objection r&sts on, confessedly, a nar- row foundation. 2.) That the divinity of Christ can no more be argued from the name of Emanuel, than the divinity of Eli, whose name signifies " mi/ God." But this was the common name of Eli, — not so Emanuel, which was a descriptive title, given by revelation,

(2.) Luke i. 16, 17, "And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the LoED THEIR God," etc.

(3.) John i. 1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," etc. 1.) The Logos in this pa.ssage is called God in the highest sense. Three reasons. • 2.) Criticism on the Greek article, annexed by Dr. Middle- ton. 3.) Socinians assert that yivofKU never

62 KING OF ISRAEL.

signifies to create. Ans. It is thus used in the following passages : Heb. iv. 3 : Heb. xi. 3 ; James iii. 9. 4.) They trans- late the passage also, " All things were made Jor him." This interpretation ef- fectually destroys the other. But ^t« with a genitive, denotes not the final, but the efficient cause. (4.) John XX. 28, " Thomas answered .... my Lord and my God." Socinians make this a mere ejaculation ! (5.) Titus ii. 13, " Looking for that blessed hope .... gi-eat God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." (6.) Heb. i. 8, " But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever." Two Socinian objections answered. (7.) 1 John V. 20, " This is the true God

and eternal life." (8.) Eom. ix. 5, " Whose are the fathers .... God blessed for eyer." 1.) Four points to be noted in regard to this text. 2.) All attempts to weaken the force of this powerful passage have failed. (Pp. 94-110.) IV. The title "King of Israel." The writers of the New Testament could not use this appel- lation in a lower sense than that which it holds in the Old Testament : it is sufficient to show that it was understood by the Jews, to imply divinity. 1.) Nathanael's exclamation, and 2.) The expressions of the revilers at the

SOX OF GOD. 63

crucifixion, are sufficient proofs of this. (P}). 110-111.)

V. The title " Sox op God," demands a larger notice, inasmuch as Socinians restrain its sig- nificance to the mere humanity of Christ, and many who hesitate not to admit the divinity of Christ, coincide with the Socinians as to the Sonship. This subject is treated as follows :

The fact is not disputed, that the title Son of God was applied to Christ. The question then is, what this title imported. One opin- ion is,

(I.) That the title was assumed by Christ because of his miraculoibs conception. But

1. Our Lord always permitted the Jews to consider him the son of Joseph.

2. When arguing with the Jews, expressly to establish that God was his father, Christ made no reference to the miraculous con- ception.

S. Nathanael knew not but Christ was the

son of Joseph, yet called him " The Son of

God, and the King of Israel."

The confession of Peter, " Thou art the

Christ, the Son of the living God^' was

made without reference to the miraculous

conception : and probably before that fact

was made known to the apostles, (Pp.

112-114.)

(II.) Another opinion is, that the title, "Sox

OF God," was simply an appellation of

Messiah \ an official, not a personal desig-

64 SON OF GOD.

nation. But the evangelical history fully refutes this notion, by showing that the Jews regarded the title "Son of God" as necessarily invohnng a claim to divinity, but did not so regard " Messiah." (Pp. 115-116.) (III.) In the Old Testament, we find that the title " Son of God," was a j^^'^'sonal desig- nation : that the Sonship was essential — but the Messiahship accidental.

1. Psa. ii., " Thou art my Son, this day have T begotten thee." (1.) This cannot be interpreted with reference to the mirac- ulous conception. (2.) Nor with refer- ence to the resurrection; for 1.) Christ was asserted to be the " beloved Son" he- fore his resurrection, and 2.) Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans, tells us that the resurrection of Christ was the declaration of his Sonship — not the ground of it. Ar- gument corroborated by a quotation from Witsius.

2. Proverbs viii. 22. Solomon introduces the personal wisdom of God, under the same relation of a Son.

The ancient Jewish writers speak of the ge- neration of " Wisdom," and by that term, mean " the Word."

3. Micah v. 2, " But thou, Bethlehem Ephrata," etc. This passage carefully distinguishes the human nature from the eternal generation: — as two goings forth

SON OF GOD. 65

are spoken of, 1.) A natural one, '■^ from Bethlehem to Judah ;" 2.) Anotlier and liiglier '■'■from the days of eternity."

The glosses of Priestley and others, which would make this passage refer to the /^ro- rtiises or purpose of God from everlasting, are shown to be absurd.

4. Prov. XXX. 4, " What is his name, and what is his Son's name," etc. Here there is no reference to Messiahship.

Thus the Scriptures of the Old Testament

furnished the Jews with the idea of a

personal Son in the divine nature. (Pp.

116-127.)

(lY.) The same ideas of divine Sonship are

suggested in the New Testament.

1. "When Jesus was baptized .... This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleas- ed." (1.) This name, Son of God, was not here given with I'eference to the resur- rection,. ('2.) Nor with reference to the Messiahshij)-, nor(3.) With reference to the miraculous concejjtion. It must follow then that Christ was, in a higher nature than his human, and for a higher reason than an official one, the " Son of God." (Pp. 128-131.)

2. The epithet, " only begotten," ^SiSords fur- ther proof of the Sonship of Christ in his divine nature.

3. Those passages which declare that all things were made by *' the Son," and that God '■'sent his Sonj" imply that the Creator

QQ SON OF GOD.

was the Son of God before he was sent into the world. It is assumed, but not proved, by some, that the title Son is thus applied by a mere interchange of titles between the human and divine nature.

4. Those passages ivhich coniiect the title " Son" immediately ^ and by way of emi- nence with the divinity, remain to be con- sidered. (P. 545.) Such are — " My Father worketh hithei-to, and I work," John V. 17. — " I and my Father are one," John X. 30.— "Art thou the Son of God ?" Ans. by Christ. " Ye say that I am." (Pp. 131-138.)

5. In the ajiostolic writings^ we find equal proof that the title " Son of God" was used even by way of ojypositioii to the human nature. (1.) Kom. i. 3, 4, "De- clared to be the Son of God with jDower," etc. (2.) The apostle's argument in the first chapter of Epistle to Hebrews. (3.) Rom. viii. 3, " God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." (4.) " Moses was faithful as a servant, but Christ as a Son." (5.) All those passages in which the first person is called the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Recapitulation of the argument. (Pp. 138- 145.) (V.) Importance of the admission of the eternal

filiation of our Lord." Some divines, believing the divinity of Christ,

SON OF GOD. 67

have yet opposed ilie eternal Sonship — but they have nearly, if not quite, adopted Unitarian modes of interpretation : and on a point confessedly fundamental, they differ from the opinions held by the orthodox church in all ages. The follov\ing conse- quences, in the opinion of our author, of denying the divine filiation of Christ are worthy of note :

1. A loose method of interpretation.

2. The destruction of all relation among the persons of the Godhead.

3. The loss of the Scriptural idea that the Father is t\ie fotintain of Deity.

4. The same of the perfect equality, and yet subordination of the Son.

5. The overthrow of the doctrine of the love of the Father, in the gift of his Son. Episcopius's argument. (Pp. 146-152.)

(VI.) Objections to the divine Sonship con- sidered. (Pp. 153-157.) See also i/". *S7war^'s Letters to Dr. Miller, on the Eternal Gener- ation of the Son of God, Andover, 1822 : and his Letters to Dr. Channing on the Trinity ; also Wardlaw's Systematic Theo- logy. Yol. IL pp. 32-59. VI. The title Word. Used principally by the evangtlist John. Two inquiries arise here — I. Whence the evangelist drew the appellation 'i Ans.

(1. From the Scriptures of the Old Testa- ment : by quotations from which it is shown to be a theological and not a philo'

68 THE LOGOS.

sophic title : and one which had received the stamp of inspiration, a. Genesis xv. 1. b. Psa. xviii. 30. c. 1 Samuel ui. 21. d. 2 Samuel vii. 21 ; 1 Chron. xvii. 19.

(2.) The Targums further evince the theo- logical origin of this appellation. Illus- trated by a number of quotations and references.

(3.) Philo and the philosophic Jews, then, may be spared in this inquiiy, but it can be shown, 1 . That if Philo possessed the idea of a personal Logos, he did not derive it from Plato. 2. That he did derive it from the established theology of his nation. (Pp. 1;.8-171.)

II. What reasons led the evangelist to adopt this appellation ?

It is supposed John wrote with a view to the suppression of the Gnostic heresy : in order to afford the clearest refutation of those who denied the pre-existence of Christ.

III. Argv/ment from its use, agaiiist Socinian- ism.

1. St John says, the Logos " was that light, but John Baptist was not."' Here is a parallel between two persons — not between a person and an attribute.

2. The Logos became man. But how could ^ an attnhute become man 1

The personality of the Logos being estab- lished, his divinity follows of course. (Pp. 171-179.)

DIYIXE ATTBIBUTES. 69

D. Christ possessed of divine attributes.

(Ch. xiii. vol. II.)

God is made known to us by his attributes. Should, then, the same attributes be found ascribed in Scripture to Christ, we infer directly, that Christ is God.

I. Eterxity is ascribed to Christ. (1.) Isaiah ix. 6. (2.) Rev. i. 17, 18. (3.) Rev. i. 8. (4.) Hebrews xiii. 8. (5.) Hebrews i. 10—12. (6.) "Eternal life." (Pp. 180-183.)

II. Omnipresence is ascribed to him. (1.) " No man hath ascended up to heaven," etc. (2.) " Where two or three ax'e gathered together," etc. (3. ) " Lo, I am with you always," etc. (4.) " By him all things consist." (Pp. 183-186.)

III. Omniscience is ascribed to Christ. Two kinds of knowledge peculiar to God.

1. A perfect knowledge of the thoughts and intents of the human heart. This is expressly attributed to Christ. (1.) "He knew what was in man." (2.) The word of God is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (3.) Interpre- tation of Mark xiii. 32.

2. The knowledge of futurity. This is also ascribed to Christ, John vi. 64, and xiii. 11, and all the predictions uttered by him, and which are nowhere referred by him to insjnration, are in proof of his possessing this attribute. (186-193.)

TV. Omnipotence is ascribed to Christ (1.) Rev. i. 8. (2.) To the Jews he said, "What things soever

70 DIVINE ACTS.

the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (3.) All the Scriptural argument from the ascription of divine attributes to Chiist, may be summed up with his own remarkable declaration, " All things which the Father hath are mine," John xvi. 15. (Pp. 193-194.)

E. Divine acts are ascribed to Christ. (Ch. xiv. vol. II.)

I. Creation. Socinians admit that creation out of nothing is the work of a divine powei', and therefore interpret those passages of the New Testament which speak of Christ as a Creator, — as referring to a moral creation, or to the regulation of all things in the evangelical dispensation. Absurdity of this.

1. The creation of " all things" is ascribed to Christ, in the introduction to St. John's Gos- pel. This can only be understood of a physical creation.

2. " By whom also he made the world?," Heb. i. 2. * Two Socinian glosses are offered.

(1.) To render the words, "_/or whom also," etc. But c?i« with a genitive, never signifies the Jlnal cause, setting aside the absurdity of the worlds being made for a mere man.

(2.) To understand "the worlds" — ^ovc aiuvag — for the gospel dispensation; but the same phrase is used in the eleventh chapter, — where it can only be understood of a physical creation : — and in the close of the first chapter, the

DIVINE WORSHIP. 71

apostle reiterates the doctriue of the creation of the world by Jesus Christ. 3. Coloss. i. 15 — 17, " Who is the image of the invisible God, the fii'st-born of every creature : for by him were all things created," etc. Socinian gloss. — " Here is meant the great change introduced into the moral world by the dispensa- tion of the gospel."

(1.) The j^rian notion, that by "first-born," is meant " first-created," is easily refuted. As to date of his being, he was " before all created things." — As to the manner of it, he was by generation not creation, (2.) As for the Socinian gloss, it makes the apostle say, that Christ was the first-made member of the Christian church, and the reason for this is, that he made the church ! (Pp. 195-204.)

II. The preservation of the universal frame of things is ascribed to Christ.

III. The final destruction of material natui'e is also expressly attributed to him.

IV. Our Lord claims, generally, to perform the works of his Father : also to possess original mirac- ulous powers.

V. He promises to send the Holy Sjnrit.

VI. The forgiveness oj sins, unquestionably a peculiar act of Deity, was claimed by Christ. (Pp. 204- 206.

72 ADORATION.

F. Divine worship paid to Christ. (Ch. XV. vol. II.

(a.) The fact established.

I. Prior to his ascension.

1.) The case of the leper. 2.) Of the blind man. 3.) The disciples. N.B. Our Lord did not receive these acts of worship as a civil ruler. (Pp. 207-209.)

II. Subsequent to his ascension.

1.) Luke xxiv. 51, 52, "He was parted from them, aad carried up into heaven, and they xoor- shipped him, etc. 2.) The prayer of the apostles, when filling up the place of Judas. 3.) Sup- plications of Stephen, the protomartyr. Futility of the JSocinian gloss, and that of Dr. Priestley 4.) Paul's prayer, when afflicted with the "thorn in the flesh." 5.) Paul's prayer in behalf of the Thessalonians. (Pp. 209-214.)

III. Adoration of Christ among heavenly beings. 1.) " Let all the angels of God worship him,"

Psalm xcvii. Horsley's remarks. 2. Psalm Ixxii. 3.) The book of Revelation. (Pp. 214-219.)

IV. All the doxologies to Christ, and all the bene- dictions made in his name, in common with those of the Father and the Holy Spirit, ai"e forms of worship.

(b.) Its hearing examined.

1. From tlie avowed religious sentiments of the apostles, they could not pay religious woi-ship

PERSON OF CHEIST. 73

to Christ, unless tliey considered him a diA'ine person.

2. We collect the same from their uniform practice.

3. The Arian doctrine of siipreme and inferior wor- ship refuted by Dr. Waterland.

4. The Socinian;, more consistently, refuse to " honour the Son as ... . the Father." The passage, Philip, ii. 5 — 7, is shown to contain the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, without which it cannot be rationally interpreted. (Pp. 219-234.)

(III.) Person of Christ. (Ch. xvi. vol. II.)

I. Humanity of Christ. In the early church it was necessary to establish that Christ possessed a real human nature. Notice the following

1. Erroneous opinions. 1.) The Gnostics denied the real existence of the body of Christ. 2.) The ApollLnarian heresy rejected the exist- ence of a human soul in our Lord. 3.) Among those who held the union of the two natures in Christ, there were various opinions — those of the ISTestorians, Monophisites, and Monothelites.

2. The true sense of Scripture was given by the council of Chalcedon in the fifth century : — with whose formula the Athanasian deed agrees, and the orthodox church has adopted this creed. Certainly, without keeping in view the completeness of each nature, we shall

G

74 THE TWO NATURES.

find it impossible, in many places to apprehend the sense of the Scriptures. (Pp. 235-239.)

II. The UNION of the tivo natures of Christ in one hypostasis is equally essential to the full exposi- tion of the Scriptures. The following passages illustrate this.

1. " The Word was made^es/t," John i. 14.

2. " The church of God, which he hath purchased with his own Mood," Acts x::. 28. Digression — to examine Dr. John Pye Smith's

view of orthodox language.

3. " For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," Col, ii. 9.

4. "When he had by /imse^/" purged our sins," etc., Heb. i. 3,

■ These and similar pasages may be embraced under the two following classes : 1 . ) Those which speak of the efficacy of the sufferings of Christ foi' remission of sins. 2.) Those which argue from the compassion^ etc., of our Lord, to the exercise of confidence in him. (Pp. 239-248.)

III. Errors as to the person of Christ.

1. Arianism: so called from its author Arius^ whose characteristic tenet was that Christ wa& the first and most exalted of creatures.

2. Sabellianism : which, asserting the divinity of the Son and the Spirit, and denying the per- sonality of both, stands equally opposed to Arianism and Trinitarianism.

3. Socinianism, in which the two former are now nearly merged. This last has been fully refuted by the establish mrait of the Scripture

THE HOLY GHOST. 75

doctrine of a trinity of divine persons in the unity of the Godhead, which involves a refutation of the other two heresies. (Pp. 248-250.)

{IV.) Personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost. (Ch. xvii. vol. II.)

I. As to the nianrier of the Being of the Holy Ghost — the orthodox doctrine is, that as Christ is God by an eternal filiation, so the Spirit is God by procession from the Father and the Son. The doctrine of procession, our author thinks, rests on direct Scripture authority, as stated by Bishop Pearson.

1. " Even the Spirit of truth, which peoceedeth from the Father," John xv. 26.

2. The very expressions which are spoken of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Father, ai"e also spoken of the same Spirit in relation to the Son.

II. Arius regaided the Spirit as created by Christ : but afterward his followers considered the Holy Ghost as the exerted energy of God, which notion, with some modifications, is adopted by Socinians, (Pp. 251-254.)

III. Scriptural argument for the personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost.

(a.) From the frequent association in Scripture of a perso7i, under that appellation, with two other persons, one of whom, " the Fatlier," is by all acknowledged to be divine ; and the as-

76 PERSONALITY.

cription to each, or to the three in union., of the same acts, titles, authority, and worship, in an equal degree.

1. Association of the three persons m. creative

acts.

2. Do. in the preservation of all

things.

3. Do. in the insjnration of the

prophets.

4. Do. as objects of supreme wor-

ship.

5. Do. in the form of baptism. (Pp.

254-263.) (b.) Some other arguments, for

(1.) The personality of the Spirit. 1.) He proceeds from the Father and Son, and can- not therefore be either. 2.) Many scriptures are absurd, unless the Holy Ghost be a per- son. 3.) The Holy Ghost is spoken of in many passages where mere personification is impossible. 4.) The iise of masculine pro- nouns and relatives in the Greek of the New Testament, in connection with the neuter noun TTVBvixa — Si»irit.

(2.) The divinity of the Spirit. 1.) He is the subject of blasphemy. 2.) He is called God. 3. ) He is the source of iiispiration. (Pp. 263-270.) See also Treffry on the Eternal Sonship of oiu' Lord ; Wardlaw's Systematic Theology ; and Professor M. Stuart's Letters to Dr. Channing on the Trinity, in his Miscellanies, 1846.

man's primitiye condition. 77

IL DOCTEINES EELATING TO MAN, (Cli, xviii-xxix.)

(A.) Original. Sin,

I. Maris primitive condition.

II. Testimony of Scripture as to the fall of man.

III. Results of tlie fall, to Adam and his posterity. (Pp. 271-384. volir.)

I. Man's primitive condition.

(I.) Adam was made under law, as all Ms de- scendants are Lorn under law.

1. There is evidence of the existence of a moral as well as a natural government of the

universe.

2. The law under which all moral ag-ats — angels, devils, or men — are placed there is reason to believe, is, in its great principles, the same.

3. Each particular law supposes the general ona Laio was not frst introduced into the world when the law of Moses was engraven on the tables of stone. (Pp. 271-277.)

(II.) The hi^tory of mans creation in briefl

1. The manner of the narration indicates some- thing peculiar and eminent in the being formed. " And God said, Let us make man in our image," etc.

2. The image of God— in what did it consist ? (1.) Not in the body.

78 THE niAGE OF GODV

(2.) Not in the damimGn granted to man m

this lower world. (3.) Xor in any ores essential qi;ality : as the evidence of Scripture is sufficiently esj'licity that it comprises what may be lost and re- gained. (4.) But, theologically speaking, we have (a.) The natural image of God — consisting oi sjnrituality, immortality, and intellectual poicers. (b.) The moral image, proved from the fol- lowing passages of Scripture. (1.) EccL vii. 29, "^God made man iipright." (2.) Coh iii. 10. (S.) Eph. iv. 24. (4.) " Andi God saw . . , and behold it was-verj good." Gen. i. SL (Pp. 277-285.) (5.) As to the degree of Adam's perfection ia the moral image of God, there are two exti-eme opinions. Without falling into either of these, we have the following conclusions : —

1. Adam was sinless both in act and prin- ciple.

2. He possessed the faeuUy of knowledge, and also

3. Holiness and righteousness, which ex- press not only sinlessness, but positive- and active -virtues. (Pp. 285-288.)

4. Our author shows elsewhere that holi- ness and righteousness were the effects of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which God gave to Adam in the day of creation. (Pp. 328, 375, 608.)

THE FALL OF MAX. : 79

3. Objection to the creation of man in tlie moral image of God, by Dr. Taylor, answered.

(1.) The fallacy of the objection lies in confounding Aa6ife of holiness with the priri- ciple.

(2.) Answer quoted from Wesley.

(3.) From Edwards.

4. Final csMse of the creation of man - the display of the glory of God, and principally of his moral perfections. (Pp. 288-292.)

IT. The fall of MA?f.

The Mosaic account,— the garden— serpent, etc.,— teaches of, (1) the existence of an evil spirit; (2) the introduction of a state of moral cor- ruptness into human nature; and (3) a vica- rious atonement for sin. There are three classes of opinions held among the interpreters of this account.

(1.) Class. Those which denij the literal sense, and regard the whole narration as an instructive viythos.

(A..) Two facts sufficiently refute these notions.

1. The account of the fall of the first pair is a jxirt of a continuous history. If, then, the account of the fall may he excerpted as allego- rical, any subsequent portion of the Pentateuch may in like manner he taken away.

2, The literal seme of the history is referred to, and reasoned upon, as such, in various parts of Scriptui-e. (Pp. 292-299.)

80 THE FALL OF MAN,

(B.) Objections have been started to the literal and historical interpretation, of -which the following are specimens : —

1. " It ia nnreasonable to suppose that the frait of the tree of life could confer immortality. But

{!.) Why could not this tree be the appointed means of preserving health and life ?

(2.) Why may not the eating of the fr\nt be regarded as a sacramental act ?

2. " How could the fruit of the tree of know- ledge have any effect upon the intellectual powers ?"

1. Surely the tree might be called "the tree of knowledge of good and eidl," because, by eating of its fruit, man came to know, by sad experience, the value of the good he had forfeited, etc. — or,

2. It was the test of Adam's fidelity, and hence the name was proper.

3. Objection has been made to the account of the serpent, (a.) That it makes " the invisible tempter assume the body of an animal." Who can prove this to be impossible? (b.) "But the serpent spoke !" So did Balaam's ass. (c.) " But Eve was not surprised." Why should she 1 or if she were, the history need not mention so slight a matter, (d.) " But the serpent was unjustly sentenced, if merely an instrument." The serpent certainly held its i"ank at the pleasure of the Creator. (Pp. 299- 303.)

MAN IN A STATE OF TRIAL. 81

(C.) Tradition comes in to support the literal sense of the history.

1. The ancient Jewish writers, Apocrypha, etc.

2, The various systems of heathen mythology — Greek, Egyptian, Mexican, Roman, Gothic, and Hindoo. (Pp. 303-307.)

(II.) Glass. Those who interpret the account, in part literally, and in part allegorically. Suffi- ciently answered by quotation from Bishop Horsley. (Pp. 307-308.)

(III.) Class. Those who believe that the history has, in perfect accordance with the literal inter- pretation, a mystical and higher sense than the letter. This sentiment, without running into the extjjavagances of mysticism, is the orthodox doc- trine. The history is before us : — but rightly to understand it, these four points should be kept in view : —

1 . Man was in a state of trial.

(1.) This involved power oi obedience and dis- obedience.

(2.) That which determines to the one or the other, is the will.

(3.) Our first parents were subject to tempta- tion from intellectual pride, from sense, and from passion.

(4.) To resist such temptation, prayer, vigil- ance, etc., were requisite.

2. The prohibition of a certain fruit was but cme part of the law under which man was placed. (1.) Distinction between positive and moral

precepts.

82 RESULTS OF THE FALL.

(2.) The moral reason fortius positive precept, as indeed for, probably, all others, may be easily discovered.

3. The serpent was but the instrument of the real tempter, who was that evil spirit, whose Scrip- tural appellatives are the Devil and Satan. Existence and power of this spirit clearly de- clared in Scripture.

4. The curse of the serpent was symbolical of the punishment of Satan. This symbolical inter- jiretalion defended by three considerations. (Pp. 308-325.)

III. Results of the fall.

m

(I.) To Adam, the penalty of " the offence^'' inevit- able death, after a temporary life of severe labour.

1. Statement of opinions as to the extent and application of this penalty.

(a.) Pelagian notion — Adam would have died had he not sinned.

(b.^ Pseudo-Arminian doctrine of Whitby, and others.

(a) Armiuius's doctrine, taken from his writ- ings. With this nearly agree the Eemon- strants, the Augsburg Confession, the Church of England, aud the French and Scottish churches. (Pp. 325-332.)

2. Im2:)ort of the term death, as used in Scripture, (a.) " Death came into the world by sin."

(b.) It dcjes not imply annihilation.

(c.) It extends to the soul as well as to the

IMPUTATION.

83

body, thus embracing (1.) Bodily death, i.e., the separation of the soul from the body. (2.) Spiritual death, i.e., the separation of the soul from God. (3.) Eternal death, i.e., separation from God, and a positive infliction of his wrath in a future state. Taylor's objection answered by Wesley and Edwards. (Pp. 332-.337.) (11.) This sentence extended to Adam's posterity.

1. The testimony of Scripture explicitly establishes & federal cdnnection between Adam and his de- scendants. Rom. V. 12-21 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22.

2. The imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, is the result of this connection. Not mediate — not immediate — but the legal result of sin.

3. The consequences of this imputation are, 1.) Death of the body. 2.) Spiritual death. 3.) Eternal death.

4. Objections are raised against this doctrine — of two kinds : — one against high Calvinism, which we leave to take care of itself ; and the other, against the legal part of this transaction, without considering, in connection with it, the evangelical scheme. The case may be con- sidered

(I.) With, regard to adults. The remedial schei:ie ofiers, a.) In opposition to bodily death — the resurrection, b.) In opposition to spiritual death — spiritual life, c.) In opposition to eternal death — eternal life.

(2.) With regard to infants, a.) The benefits of Christ's death are coextensive with the

84

MORAL CONDITION.

sin of Adam, Rom. v, 18 j hence all children dying in infancy, partake of the free gift. b.) Infants are not indeed born justified : nor are they capable of that voluntary ac- ceptance of the benefits of the free gift which is necessary in the case of adults : — but, on the other hand, they cannot reject it, — and it is by the rejection of it that adults perish, c.) The process by which grace is communicated to infants is not revealed : the administra- tion doubtless difiers from that employed toward adults. d.) Certain instr^anental causes may be considered in the case of children, — the intercession of Christ; or- dinances of the church ; prayers of parents, etc. (^Pp. 337-349.) (III.) Tlte moral condition in which men are actu- ally born into the world.

I. Several facts of experience are to be accounted for.

1 . That in all ages great and general national wickedness has prevailed.

2. The strength of the tendency to this wicked- ness, marked by two circumstances : 1.) The greatness of the crimes to which men have abandoned themselves. 2.) The number of restraints against which this tide of evil has urged its course.

3. The seeds of the vices may be discovered in children in their earliest years.

Every man is conscious of a natural tendency to many evils.

UNIVERSAL CORRUPTION. 85

5- The passions, appetites, and inclinations, make strong resistance, when man deter- mines to renounce his evil courses. (Pp. 349-356.)

II. To account for these fact?, we derive Jrom Scripture the hypothesis, — that man is hy natuie totally corrupt and degenerate, and of himself incapable of any good thing. The fol- lowing passages contain this doctrine, — 1.) Gen. V. 3, " Adam begat a son in his own likeness." 2.) Gen. vi. 5, ''Every imagiaation," etc. 3.) Gen, viii. '_'l, " The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." 4.) Book of Job xi. 12 j v. 7 ; xiv. 47 ; xv. 14. 5.) Psalm li. 5; Iviii. 3, 4. 6.) Prov. xxii. 15; xxix. 15. 7.) Eom. iii. 10, quoted from Psalm xiv. 2, 3. 8.) That class of passages which speak of evil as a distinguishing mark not of any one man, but of human nature, Jeremiah, xvii. 5, 9, etc. 9.) Our Lord's discourse with Nicodemus, John iii. 10.) Argument in the third chapter of the Epistle to the Ptomans.

The doctrine of the natural and universal corrup- tion of man's nature, thus obtained from Scrip- ture, fully accounts for the above mentioned five facts of experience. (Pp. 356-366.) Let us see how far they can be explained on

III. The theory of man's natural innocence and purity. This doctrine refers these pheno- mena to

1. General bad example. But 1.) This does not account for the introduction of wicked-

86 ORIGINAL SIN.

ness. 2. How could bad example become general,if men are generally disposed to good'i 3.) This very hypothesis admits the power of evil example, which is almost giving up the matter in dispute. 4.) This theory does not account for the strong bias to evil in men ; nor of the vicious tempers of children, nor for the difficulty of virtue. The advocates of this doctrine refer also to 2. Vicious education, to account for these phe- nomena. But 1.) Where did Cain get his vicious education ? 2. Why should educa- tion he generally bad, unless men are predis- posed to evil 1 3.) But, in fact, education in all countries has in some degree opposed vice. 4. As for the other facts, education is placed upon the same ground as example, (Pp. 367-371.)

IV. Some take a milder vieio oj the case than the orthodox, denying these tendencies to various excesses to be sinful, until they are approved by the toill. But why this universcd compli- ance of the loill with what is known to be evil, unless there be naturally a corrupt state of the mind, which is what we conteud for. The death of children proves that all men ax-e "constituted" aud treated as "sinners." (Pp. 371-372.)

V. Nature of original sin.

1. The forfeiture of the Holy Spirit and con- sequent privation of the image of God, ac- cording to Arminius.

ORIGINAL SIN. 87

2. No infusion of evil into the nature of man bj God, but positive evil, as the effect, is connected with the privation of the life of God, as the cause.

3. As to the transmission of this corrupt nature, the Scriptural doctrine peems to be that the soul is ex tradiice, and not by immediate creation from God. This doctrine does not necessarily tend to materialism.

4. All are born- under the curse of the law, which has deprived human nature of the Spirit of God, which can only be restored by Christ.

5. It does not follow from the corruption of human nature that there can be nothing virtuous among men befoi'e regeneration. But all that is good in its principle is due to the Holy Spirit, whose influences are afforded to all, in consequence of the atonement offered for all. The following reasons may be assigned for the apparent virtues that are noticed among unregenerate men. 1.) The understanding of man cannot reject de- monstrated truth. 2.) The interests of men are often connected with right and wrong. 3.) The seeds of sin need exciting circum- stances for their full development. 4.) All sins cannot show themselves in all men, 5.) Some men are more powerfully bent to one vice ; some to another.

But all virtues grounded on principle, wherever seen

EEDElilPTION.

among men, are to be ascribed to the Holy Spirit, ■which has been vouchsafed to ^' the world," through the atonement. (Pp. 372-384.) See also Payiu, and Wardlaw, on Original Sin.

(B.) Redemption. (Ch, xix-xxix.)

(I.) Principles of redemption. (Ch. xix-xxii.)

I. Principles of God's moral government. (Ch. xix. vol. II.)

The penalty of death was not immediately executed in all its extent upon the first sinning pair. Why was it not 1 In order to answer this question, the character of God, and the princi- ples of his moral government, will be briefly examined.

(I.) The divine character is illustrated by the extent and severity of the punishments denounced against transgression. (Pp. "85-387.)

(II.) It is more fully illustrated by the testimony of God himself in the Scriptures, where

1. The divine holiness, and

2. The divine justice, are abundantly declared. Justice is either, 1) universal, or 2) particular, which latter is commiitative (respecting equals) or distributive, which is exercised only by governors. Of the strictness and severity of the distributive justice of God, the sentence of death is sufacicnt evidence. (Pp. 387-389.)

\

-1^ ■.«-■

THE PENALTY FOR SIN.

89

([II.) Connection between the essential justice of God, and such a constitution of law and government.

1. The creation of free human beings involved the possibility of evil volitions and acts, and conse- quently misery.

2. To prevent these evils was the end of the divine government, the first act of which was the publication of the will or law of God : the second, to give motives to obedience, hap- piness, justice, fear,

3. It was necessary to secure obedience, that the highest penalty should be affixed to transgres sion.

4. Admitting its necessity, its institution was de- manded by 1.) The holiness ; 2.) The justice ; and 3.) The goodness of God. (Pp. 389- 394.)

(IV.) Does the justice of God oblige him to ex- ecute the penalty 1 The opponents of the doc- trine of atonement deny this : — but we can show, that

] . Sin cannot be forgiven by tlie mere prerogative of God : for (1.) God cannot give up his right to obedience,

without indifference to moral rectitude. (2. ) Nor can the Deity give up his right to punish disobedience, without either (a) par- tiality, if pardon be granted to a few; or (b) the abrogation, in effect, of law, if pardon be extended to all. (Pp. 394-397.)

88 EEDEMPTION.

among men, are to be ascribed to the Holy Spirit, ■which has been vouchsafed to ^^ the world," through the atonement. (Pp. 372-384:.) See also Payne, and Wardlaw, on Original Sin.

(B.) Redemptiox. (Ch. xix-xxix.)

(I.) Principles of redemption. (Ch. xix-xxii.)

T. Principles of God's moral government. (Ch. xix. vol. 11.)

The penalty of death was not immediately executed in all its extent upon the first sinning pair. Why was it not / In order to answer this question, the character of God, and the princi- ples of his moral government, will be briefly examined.

(I.) The di\'ine character is illustrated by the extent and severity of the punishments denounced against transgression. (Pp. "85-387. )

(II.) It is more fully illustrated by the testimony of God himself in the Scriptures, where

1. The divine holiness, and

2. The divine justice, are abundantly declared. Justice is either, 1) universal, or 2) particular, which latter is commutative (respecting equals) or distrihzUive, which is exercised only by governors. Of the strictness and severity of the distributive justice of God, the sentence of death is sufficient evidence. (Pp. 387-389.)

THE PENALTY FOR SIN. 89

(III.) Connection between the essential justice of God, and such a constitution of law and government.

1 . The creation of free human beings involved the possibility of evil volitions and acts, and conse- quently misery.

2. To prevent these evils was the end of the divine government, the first act of which was the publication of the will or law of God : the second, to give motives to obedience, hap- piness, justice, fear,

3. It was necessary to secure obedience, that the highest penalty should be affixed to transgres sion.

4. Admitting its necessity, its institution was de- manded by 1.) The holiness; 2.) The justice; and 3.) The goodness of God. (Pp. 389- 394.)

(TV.) Does the justice of God oblige him to ex- ecute the penalty 1 The opponents of the doc- trine of atonement deny this : — but we can show, that

1. Sin cannot he forgiven by tJie mere prerogative of God : for (1.) God cannot give up his right to obedience,

without indifference to moral rectitude. (2. ) Nor can the Deity give up his right to punish disobedience, -without either (a) par- tiality, if pardon be granted to a few; or (b) the abrogation, in effect, of law, if pardon be extended to alL (Pp. 394-397.)

H

90 REPENTANCE.

2. Nor does repentance, on the j)arl of the offender, place him in a new relation, and thus render him a fit object of pardon. Those who hold this doctrine, admit the necessity of something which shall make it right as well as merciful for God to forjjfive. But we deny repentance to be that something : for (1.) We find no intimation in Scripture that the penalty of the law is not to bo executed in case of repentance. (2.) It is not true that repent ;^.nce chauges the legal relation of the guilty to God, whom they have offended. They are off'enders still, though penitent. (3.) S(» far from repentance producing this change of relation, we have proofs to the contrary, both from the Scriptures and the established course of providence. (4.) The true nature of repentance, as stated in the Scriptures, is overlooked by those who hold this doctrine. (5.) In the gospel, which professedly lays down the means by which men are to obtain the pardon of their sins, that pardon is not connected with mere repentance. (Pp. 397- 404.) I. Death of Christ propitiatory. (Chap. xx. vol. II.) In this and the two following chapters, we investi- gate that method of love, wisdom, and justice, by which a merciful God justifies the ungodly on their believing in Chiist ; Jirgt, examining the

THE DEATH OF CHKIST. 91

statements of the N&w TeMcument : secondly, the sacrifices of the law ; and thirdly, the patria/rchal sacrifices : — from which investigation we hope to show clearly the unity of the three great dispen- sations of religion to man, the Patriarchal, Leviti- cal, and Christian, in the great principle, that " without shedding of blood is no remission." Heb, ix. 22, And first, . Pj'oof from the Neiv Testament.

I. Man's salvation is ascribed in the New Testament to tJte death of Christ; and

1. The Socinian considers the death of Christ merely as the means by which repentance is produced in the heart of man.

2. The Aria-7i connects with it that kind of merit which arises from a generous and benevolent self-devotion. (Pp. 405-407.) But

II. The New Testament represents the death of Christ as necessary to salvation ; not as the merit- orious means, but as the meritorious cause.

1. The necessity of Christ's death follows the admission of his divinity.

2. The matter is put beyond question, by the direct testimony of Scripture; "thus it be- hoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead." Luke xxiv. 46,

3. The death of Christ is exhibited as the only hope of the guilty. (Pp. 407-410.)

III. The New Testament informs us that Christ died "for us," that is, in our room and stead.

1. All those passages in which Christ is said to

92 PROPITIATION.

have died "/or" ({/■nip or avn) men, prove that he died for us not consequentially but directly, as a substitute.

2. Those passages in which he is said to have '''■home the punishment due to our offences" prove the same thing.

Grotins and Stillingfleet clearly prove that the Scriptures represent our sins as the impulsive cause of the death of Christ.

3. The passage in Isaiah liii. 5, " the chastisement of our peace was upon him," etc., is applied to Christ by the apostles.

4. The apostles represent the death of Christ as penal. 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Gal.iii. 13. (Pp. 410-419.)

IV. Some passages of the New Testament connect,

with the death of Christ, the words pi-oj/itiation,

atonement, and reco7iciliation. •

1. Propitiation, occurs in Kom. iii. 25 ; 1 John

il 2; iv. 10.

(1.) Definition — to propitiate is to atone, to turn

away the wrath of an oflfended person. (2.) The Socinians, in their improved version, admit that it was " the pacifying of an offended party :" but insist that Christ is a propitiation, because "by his gospel he brings sinners to repentance, and thus averts the divine displeasure." On this ground, Moses was a propitiation also. (3.) Socinians also deny the existence of wrath in God : — in order to show that pro- pitiation, in a pro-per sense, cannot be

RECONCILIATION. 93

taught in the Scriptures, But the Scriptures abundantly assert that " God is angry with the wicked."

In holding this Scriptural doctrine, we do not assert the existence of wrath as a vengeful passion in the divine mind, — this is one of the many caricatui'es of orthodoxy by Socinianism. (Pp. 419-425.) 2. Reconciliation, occurs in Col i. 19, 22; Rom. V. 10, 11 margin ; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. (1.) The expressions '■^ reconciliation,^^ '^ atone- ment,'' Horn. V. 11, ^^ making peace,'' imply a previous state of mutual hostility between God and man. Ephes. ii. 14—17. This re- lation is a legal one, as that of sovereign and criminal. The term enmity, used as it re- spects God, is unfortunate, but certainly something more is implied in reconciliation than man's laying aside his enmity to God. (2.) Various passages of Scripture go directly to prove this. Rom. v. 11 ; 2 Cor. v. 19 ; Eph. ii. 16. (3.) Socinian objection to the doctrine of re- conciliation answered. (Pp. 425-432,) V. Some texts speak of redemption in connection with the death of Christ, e.g., Rom. iii. 24 Gal. iii 13; Eph. L 7; 1 Peter i. 18, 19; 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20.

(1.) The Socinian notion of a gratuitous deliver- ance is refuted by the very terms used in

94 REDEMPTION PRICE.

the above cited passages : such as Xvrpou to

redeem, etc, (2.) The means by which it has been attempted

to evade the force of these statements must be

refuted. They are

" That the term redemption is sometimes used for simple deliverance, when no price is supposed to be given." Answer,

a. The occasional use of the term in an im- proper manner, cannot be urged against its strict signification.

b. Our redemption by Christ is emphalically spoken of in connection with the Xurpov or redemption ^mce : but this word is never added to the delivei'ance effected for the Israelites by Moses.

" That our intei'pretation of these passages would involve the absurdity of paying a pi-ice to Satan." Answer,

a. The idea of redemption is not to be con- fined to the purchasing of a captive.

b. Xor does it follow, even in that case, that the price must be paid to him who detains the captive. Our captivity to Satan is judicial, and satisfaction is to be made, not to the jailer, but to him whose law has been violated. (Pp. 433-438.)

(3.) " That our doctrine is inconsistent with the freeness of the grace of God in the forgive- ness of sins." Answer,

THE EIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD. 95

a. Dr. Priestley, himself, in requiring peni- tence from, the sinner, admits that grace may be fiee, while not unconditional.

b. The pas^>age of St. Paul, which Dr. P. quotes, ruijs thus, " Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Rom. iii. 24.

c. When siu is spoken of as a debt, freely remitted, it is clear that a metaphor is employed. (Pp. 439-445.)

VI. The nature of the death of Christ is still fur- ther explained in the New Testament, by the manner in which it connects our justification with faith in the blood of Christ : and both our justi- fication and the death of Christ with the " righte- ousness of God." Rom. iii. 24-26. (a.) Thus the forgiveness of sin is not only an act

oi mercy, but an act oi justice. (b.) The steps of this " demonstration" of the

righteousness of God are easily to be traced.

For

1. The law is by this means established in its authority a,nd perpetuity.

2. On any other theory, there is no mani- festation of God's hatred of sin, commensu- rate with the intense holiness of the divine nature.

3. The person who sufiered the penalty of the law for us was the Son of God : — in him divinity and humanity were united : — and thus, as " God spared not his own Son,"

96 SATISFACTION.

his justice is declared to be inflexible and inviolable. The Socinians object that " the dignity of a person adds nothing to the estimation of his sufferings." But (1,) the common opinion of mankind in all ages is directly against this : and (2,) the testimony of Scripture is explicit on this point. 4. Though all men are brought, by the death of Christ, into " a salvable state," yet none of them are brought from under the authority of the moral law. (Pp. 44")-452.) VII. " The satisfaction made to divine justice," is a phrase which, though not found in Scripture, is yet of theological value, and deserves to be con- sidered.

(1.) There are two views of satisfaction among those who hold the doctrine of atonement, —

1. That the sufferings and death of Christ are, from the dignity of his nature, regarded as a full equivalent and adequate compensation for the punishment of the personally gtiilty by death.

2. That Christ made satisfaction for our sins, not because his death is to be considered a full equivalent for the remission of punish -

• ment, but because his suffering in our stead maintained the honour of the divine law, and yet gave free scope to the mercy of the law- giver. Both these are defective, but the first may be

SATISFACTION. 97

admitted, witli some explanations. (Pp. 452- 453.) (II.) Some explanatory observations then are necessary.

1. The term satisfaction is taken from the Eoman law, and signifies the contentment of an injured party by any thing which he may choose to accept in place of the enforce- ment of his obligation upon the party offending. As a just governor, then, God is satisfied, contented with the atonement offered by the vicarious death of his Son.

2. The effect produced upon the mind of the lawgiver, is not the satisfaction, as the Socin- ians would say, of a vengeful affection.

3. Nor is the death of Christ to be regarded merely as a wise and fit expedient of govern- ment : for this may imply that it was one of many possible expedients, though the best. (Pp. 454-457.)

(III.) The A ntinomian perversion of these phrases needs to be refuted.

1. Antinomians connect the satisfaction of Christ with the doctrine of the imputation of his active righteousness to believers : but, 1.) We have no such office ascribed in Scrip- ture to the active righteousness of Christ. 2.) This doctrine of imputation makes Christ's sufferings superfluous. 3.) It leaves man without law, and God without dominion. 4.) This is not satisfaction in any good sense

98 THE VINCULUM.

it is merely the peifonnance of all that the law requires by one person substituted for another.

2. The terms full satisfaction and equivalent, are taken by the Antiiioinians in the sense of payment of debts by a surety : but we answer, He who pays a debt for another, does not render an equivalent, but gives preci.sely what the original obligation requires.

3. The Antinomian view makes the justification of men a matter of right, nut of grace. On their view, we cannot answer the Socinian objection that satisfaction destroys the free nature of an act of forgiveness. (Pp. 457-461.)

VIII. It is sometimes said that sve do not know the vinculum between the sufferings of Christ and the pardon of sin. But Scripture seems to give definite information on this point, in declar- ing the death of Christ to be a " demonstration of the righteousne.>-s of God." (Pp. 461-463.)

IX. Objection is made to the justice of the substi- tution of the innocent for the guilty. But

1. It has always been cousideied a virtue to suffer for others under certain circumstances : and the justice of such acts has never been questioned. Still,

2. It is wrong to illustrate this doctrine by analo- gies between the sufferings of Christ and the sufferings of persons on account of the sins of others. And,

3. The principle of vicarious punishment could

SACRIFICES. 99

not justly be adopted by human governments in any case whatever. But, 4. In regard to the sufferings of Christ,— the cir- cumstances, (1) of the imllingness of the substi- tute to submit to the penalty, and (2) his right thus to dispose of himself, fully clear up the question of justice. The diificulty of reconciling the sufferings of Christ with the divine justice lies rather with the S'ociniaus than with u<s. The passage, in Ezek. xviii. 20, is satisfactorily explained by Grotius. (Pp. 463-468.) B. Proof from the sacrifices of the law. (Ch. xxi, vol.11.) Having adduced, from the New Testament, cogent proofs of the vicarious efficacy of Christ's death, as the grand universal sin-offering for the whole world, we proceed, by the light of the argument already made good, to examine the use made of the sacrificial terms of the Old Testament : and first, the sacrifices of the law. The terms taken from the Jewish sacrifices — such as "Lamb of God," "Passover," etc., — when used by the writers of the New Testament would be not only absurd, but criminally misleading both to Jews and Gentiles : unless intended to teach the sacrificial character of the death of Christ. (Pp. 469-472.) It is necesilary to establish the expiatory nature of the Jewish sacrifices, and their typical character, both of which have been questioned. To prove that

100 SACRIFICES,

I. TJie Levkical sacrifices were expiatory^ it is only necessary to show that the eminent sacrifices were such.

The notion that these sacrifices were mere mulcts or fines is disproved

J, By the general appointment of the blood to be an atonement for the souls. Levit. xvii. 10, 11.

2. "By particular instsijices ; e.g., Levit. v. 15, 16. (Pp. 472^477.)

3. By the fact, that atonement was required by the law to be made, by sin-oflTerings, and burnt-offerings, for even bodily distempers and disorders.

4. By the sacrifices offered statedly for the whole congregation,

5. By the sacrifice of the passover. (Pp. 477- 482.)

II. The Levitical sacrifices loere also types.

A type is a sign or example, prepared and de- signed by God to prefigure some future thing. St. Paul shows that the Levitical sacrifices wei'e such.

1 . In his general description of the typical cha- racter of the "church in the wilderness."

2. In his notice of the Levitical sacrifices in par- ticular.

3. The ninth chapter of Hebrews gives direct declarations of the appointment and designa- tion of the tabernacle service to be a shadow of good things to come. (Pp. 483-487.)

SACRIFICES. 101

III. Sacrificial allusions are employed in the New Testament to describe the nature and effect of the death of Christ, not figuratively^ but pro- perly.

(a.) lUustx-ated in various passages : 1. For he hath " made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin." 2 Cor. v. 21, 22. " Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us." Ephes. V. 2, etc. 3. The whole argument of St. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 4. " And almost ail things are by the law purged with blood." Heb. ix. 22. (Pp. 487-493.)

(b.) Illustrated by distinction between figurative and analogical language.

Quotation from Veysies' Bampton Lecfciires. (Pp. 493-497.)

IV. As to the objection, that the Jewish sacrifices had no reference to the expiation of moral trans- gression, we observe,

1. That a distinction is to be made between sacrifices as a part of the theo- political law of the Jews, and sacrifice as a rite practised by their fathers.

2. Atonement was ordered to be made for sins committed against aoii/ divine command- ment.

3. But if all the sin-ofi'erings of the Levitical institute had respected legal atonement and ceremonial purification, those circumstances would not invalidate the true sacrifice of Christ. (Pp. 497,498.)

102 Abel's sacrifice.

C. From the patriarchal sacrifices. (Ch. xxii. vol. II.) Having shown that the sacrifices of the law were expiatory, we proceed now to show the same of the Ante-Mosaical sacrifices. The proofs are,

I. The distribution of beasts into clean and unclean.

II. The prohibition of blood for food.

III. The sacrifices of the patriarchs were those of of animal victims, and their use was to avert the displeasure of God from siiming men : e.g., those of Job, Noah, and Abel. But as that of Abel has given rise to controversy, we shall consider it more at large. (Pp. 499—502.)

IV. Abel's sacriH.ce.

1. As to the matter of it, — it was an animal

ofi^ering : not merely the wool and milk, as

Grotius and Le Clerc would have it, but the

" firstlings of his flock." 2 This animal ofi'ering was indicative of Abel's

faith, as declared by the apostle, Hebrews

chap, xi. 4. 3. But Davison, in his "Inquiry," asserts that

the divine testimony was not to the '^specific

form of Abel's oblation, but to his actvxjl

righteous')iess." The objections to this view of the matter are

many:

(1.) It leaves out, entirely, all consideration of the difi"erence between the sacrifice of Abel and that of Cain.

(2.) It passes over Abel's "faith," as evinced in this transaction.

Abel's sacrifice. 103

(3.) The apostle is not speaking of the general tendency of faith to induce a holy life, but of faith as producing certain acts : and his reference is to Abel's faith, as expressing itself by his offering " a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous."

(4.) St. John's incidental SLMwsiovi to Abel's per- sonal rigliteousness does not in the least affect the statement ( )f Paul, who treated professedly, not incidentally, the subject. 1 John iii. 12. And Gen. iv. 7, may be considered in two views : eitlier a) to " do ivell" may mean, to do as Abel had done ; or, h) the words may be considered as a declaration of the princi- ples of God's riiihteous government over men. (Pp. 502—509.)

. If then AheVs, faith had an immediate connec- tion with his sacrifice, the question occurs, to what had that faith respect 1 Let us illustrate the object of the faith of the elders, from Heb. xi 1-28, and then ascertain the object of Abel's faith also, from the acts in which it embodied itself In this chapter, then, (1.) Faith is taken in the sense of affiance in God : and supposes some promise or revela- tion on his part, as the warrant for every act of affiance ; as in the cases of Enoch, Noah, Abraham, etc. (2.) This revelation was antecedent to the faith : but the acts and the revelation had a

104 Abel's faith.

natural and striking conformity to eacli other : e.g.^ Noah, etc. Our inference then, as to Abel's sacrifice, is, that it was not eucharistic merely, but an act of faith, having i-espect to a previous and appi'opriate revelation. The conclusion embodied in the vfords of Archbishop Magee is warranted by the argument. (3.) But it may be asked what evidence have we from Scrij)ture that such an antecedent revelation was made ? (Pp. 509-514.) We have

(a.) The necessary inferences from the cir- cumstances of the transaction, which, combined with the apostle's interpretation of them, enable us sufficiently to defend this ground. The text which may be wanting in the Old Testament, is often supplied by the inspired comment in the Hew : — e.g., the manna — the rock, etc. . . . If it be argued that such types were not understood, as such, by the persons among whom they were first instituted, the answer is: 1. Either they were in some degree revealed to such as prayed for light, or we must conclude that the whole system of types was without edification to the Jews, and instructive only to us. 2. We have in Heb. xi, 10 — 16, in the case of Abraham, a direct proof of a distinct revelation, which is nowhere

EABLY REVELATION. 105

recorded as such in the Mosaic history, — of "a better — an heavenly country." (Pp. 514-518.) (b.) Besides these infei-ences, hovrever satisfac- tory, we have an account, though brief, of such revelation. (1.) The brevity of the account in the Mosaic history, is doubtless not without good reason ; and (2.) brief as it is, we can easily collect, from the early part of Genesis, no unimportant information in regard to priuiitive theology. (3.) It is in regard to th.Q first jiromise that we join issue with Mr. Davison ; believing that his view of it {^Inquiry, etc.) contains, with some truth much error. (Pp. 519-523.) For, a.) It is assumed, contrary to evidence, that the book, of Genesis is a complete history of the reli- gious opinions of the patriarchs ; and he would have the promise interpreted by them so as to convey only a general indistinct im- pression of a Deliverer, and that the doctrines of the divinity, incarnation, etc., of that De- liverer, wei-e not in any way to be appre- hended in this promise. Let us see, then, whether the promise, " interpreted by itself," must not have led the patriarchs many steps at least towards these doctrines, (b.) The divine nature of the promised Redeemer, we are told, was a separate revelation. But surely, the work assigned to him — the bless- ings he was to procure — the power that he

I

106 EAilLY FAITH.

was to exercise, according to the promise, were all indications of a nature superior to humanity, and to the angels. c.) The doctrine of the incarnation was contained also in the promise : This Restorer was to be of " the seed of the woman." d.) So of the doctrine o^ vicarious suj^erings : ** the heel of the seed of the womaa was to be bruised," etc. (Pp. 523-529.) (4.) It is urged by Mr. Davison, that the faith spoken of La Hebrews xi., had for its simple object, that " God is the rewarder of such as diligently seek him." But, a.) Though this is supposed as the ground- work of every act of faith, yet the special acts recorded have each theii* special ob- ject : and, b.) This notion could not be at all apposite to the purpose for which this recital of the faith of the elders was addressed to the Hebrews. Two \'iews may be given oi this recital : — 1. That the apostle adduced the ancient worthies as examples of a steady faith in all that God had then revealed to man, aud its happy conse- quences : 2. That he brought them up to prove that all the " elders " had faith in the Christ to come. Nor is this stronger view difficult to be made out, as we may trace in the cases of Abel, Enoch, Noah, ; Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., a respect

JUSTIFICATION. 107

more or less immediate, to the leading ob- ject of all faith, the MevSsiah himself. Enough has been said to prove that the sacrifice of Abel was expiatory, and that it conformed, as an act of faith, to some anterior revelation- (Pp. 530-537.) V. A divine origin must he cucnbed to sacrifice.

1. The evidence of Scripture is of sufl&cient clear- ness to establish the divine origin of the

antediluvian sacrifices : but,

2, The argument di-awn from the natural inconv- gruity of sacrificial rites ought not to be over- looked : which is strong, even as to th.e fruits of the earth, the offering of which cannot be shown to originate either in reason or in sen- timent, and still stronger, as to animal obla- tions. (Pp. 537-546.)

The divine institution of expiatory sacrifice being thus carried up to the first ages, we perceive the unity of the three great dispensations of religion, the Patbi- ARCHAL, the LrviTiCAL, and the Chkistiax, in the great principle, " that without the s/iedding oj blood is no remissiaa." (Pp. 547-518.)

(II.) Benefits of the atoxemest.

(Ch. xxiii-xxix. )

A. JuSTiFiCATiojf. (Ch- xxiii. voL II.)

Preliminary. All natural and spiritual good must be included among the benefits derived to man

108 JUSTIFICATION.

from the atonement : but we shall now treat particularly of those which constitute what is called in Scripture, man's salvation. The fruits of the death and intercession of Christ ai'e —

1. To render it consistent with the righteous go- vernment of an offended Sovereign to forgive sin ;

2. To call forth the active exercise of the love of God to man, which displays itself

(1.) In the variety of the divine dispensations: [2.) In the i-evelation of the divine will and de- claration of God's purposes of grace : (3.) In the institution of the Chi'istian ministry : (4.) In the influences of the Holy Spirit, The act of the merciful Judge, by which man is reconciled to God, is called in the Scriptures, JUSTIFICATION. (Pp. 549-554.) 1 . Statement of the Sa'iptural doctrine.

1. Justification, the remission of sin, the non- imputation of sin, and the imputation of right- eousness, are phrases of the same import : — of which the following passages are proof : Luke xviii. 13, 14; Acts xiii. 88, 39; Kom. iii. 25, 26 ; iv. 4, 8.

2. The importance of maintaining this simple view of jxistification, — that it is the remission of sins, — will appear from the following consider- ations.

(1.) We are taught that pardon of sin is not an act of prerogative, done above law : but a judicial process, done consistently with law.

JUSTIFICATION. 109

(2.) That justification lias respect to particular individuals.

(3.) Justification being a sentence of pardon, the Antinomian notion of eternal justification becomes a manifest absurdity.

(4.) We are guarded, by this view of justifica- tion, against the notion that it is an act of God by which we are made actually just and righteous.

(5. ) No ground is afforded for the notion that justification imports the imputation to us of the active and imssive righteousness of Christ, so as to make us both positively and rela- tively righteous. (Pp. 5.05-56O.) 1 1 . Doctrine of imjyutation. There are three opinions : (1.) The high Calvinistic, or Antinomian scheme,

which is, that " Christ's active righteousness is

imputed unto us, as ours." In answer to this

we say,

1. It is nowhere stated in Scripture.

2. The notion here attached to Christ's repre- senting us, is wholly gratuitous.

3. There is no weight in the argument, that " as our sins were accounted his, so his righteousness is accounted ours :" for our sins were never so accounted Christ's, as that he did them.

4. The doctrine involves a fiction and impos- sibility inconsistent with the divine attri- butes.

110 IMPUTATION.

5. The acts of Christ were of a loftier charac- ter than can be supposed capable of being the acts of mere creatures.

6. Finally, and fatally, this doctrine shifts the meritorious cause of man's justification from Christ's " obedience unto death," to Christ's active obedience to the precepts of the law. Quotations are made in confinnation from Piscator and Goodwin. (Pp. 560-567.)

(II.) The opinion of Calvin himself and many of his followers, adopted also by some Arminians. It differs from the first in not separating the active from the passive righteousness of Christ : for such a distinction would have been incon- sistent with Calvin's notion that justification is simply the remission of sins. (Pp. 567-570.) This view is adopted with certain modifica- tions by Arminius and Wesley. (Pp. 570-572.) But there is a manifest difierence, which arises from the different senses in which the word imjnUation is used ; the Arminian em- ploying it in the sense of accounting to the believer the benefiit of Christ's righteousness ; — the Calvinist, in the sense of reckoning the righteousness of Christ as ours. A slight exami- nation of the following passages will show that this notion has no foundation in Scripture : — Psalm xxxii. 1 ; Jer. xxui. 6 ; Isa. xlv. 24 ; Rom. iii. 21, 22 ; 1 Cor. i. 30 ; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Pom. V. 18, 19. In connection with this last text, it is sometimes attempted to be

IMPUTATION. Ill

shown that as Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity, so Christ's obedience is imputed nnto those that are saved : (Pp. 573-580 :) : Goodwin on Justification : but 1.) The Scrip- tures nowhere affinn, either the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity or of the right- eousness of Christ to those that believe. 2.) To imjmte sin, in Scripture phrase, is to chai-ge the guilt of sin upon a man with a purpose to punish him for it : and 3.) As to the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity ; if by it is meant, simply that the guilt of Adam's sin is charged upon his whole pos- terity, let it pass : but if the meaning be, that all Adam's posterity are made, by this imputation, ybrn?a^^y sinners, then the Scrip- tures do not justify it. (Pp. 580-585.) (III.) The imputation of yaiVi for righteousness. (a.) Proof of this doctrine.

1, It is expressly taught in Scripture^ Komans iv. 3-24, etc , — nor is faith used in these passages by metonymy for the ob- ject of faith, that is, the righteousness of Christ.

2. The testimony of the church to this doc- trine has been uniform from the earliest ages : — Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr, etc., down to the sixteenth century. (Pp. 685-592.)

(b.) Explamition of the terms of the proposi- tion, that " faith is imputed for righteous- ness."

112 IMPUTATION.

(I.) Righteousness. To be accounted right- eous, is, in the style of the apostle Paul, to he justified, where there has been personal guilt.

(2.) Faith. It is not faith generally consi- dered, that is imputed to us for righteous- ness, but faith (trust) in an atonement offered by another in our behalf.

(?.) Imputatio^i. The non-imputation of sin to a sinner, is expressly called " the impu- tation of righteousness without works ;"' the imputation of righteousness is then the non-punishment or pardon of sin, and by im- puting faith for righteousness, the apostle means precisely the same thing. (Pp. 593-596.) (c.) The objections to the docti'ine of the impu- tation of faith for righteousness admit of easy

answer.

(I.) The Papists err in taking the term "justification" to signify the making men morally just.

(2.) A second objection is, that if believing is imputed for righteousness, then justi- cation is by works, or by somewhat in our- selves. In this objection, the term "works" is used in an equivocal sense.

(3.) A third objection is, that this doctrine gives occasion to boasting : but 1.) This objection lies with equal strength against the doctrine of imputed righteousness : 2.)

OF FAITH 113

The faith itself is the gift of God : 3.) The blessings which follow faith are given in respect to the death of Christ : 4.) Paul says that " boasting is excluded by the law of faith." (Pp. 596-597.) III. The Tuxture of justifying faith ; and its connec- tion with justification.

1. Faith is 1) assent; 2) confidence: — and this faith is the condition to which the promise of God annexes justification.

2. Justification by faith alone is clearly the doc- trine of Scripture. Some suppose this doctrine to be a peculiarity of Calvinism, but it has been maintained by various Arminian writers, and by none with more earnestness and vigour, than by Mr. Wesley. (Pp. 597-604.)

3. The general objection to this doctrine is, that it is unfavourable to morality. The proper answer to this old objection is, that although we are justified by faith alone^ the faith by which we are justified is not alone in the heart which exercises it : " faith is sola^ yet not soli- taria." Some colour is given to this objection by the Calvinistic view of final perseverance, which we disavow.

4. Various errors have arisen from unnecessary attempts to guard this doctrine. (Pp- 605-607.) (1 .) The Romish Church confounds justification

and sanctification. (2.) Another opinion is, that justifying faith ir eludes works of evangelical obedience.

114 FAITH AND

(a.) The Scriptures put a plain distinction

between faitli and works, (b.) It is not probable that Christ and his apostles meant more by this word than its fixed and usual import. (3.) A third notion, that faitli apprehends the merits of Christ, to make up for the defici- ency of our imperfect obedience, is sufficient- ly refuted by the fact that no intimation of it is given in Scriptui-e. (4.) The last error referred to is that which represents faith as, per se, the necessary root of obedience. Perhaps those who use this language do not generally intend to say all that it conveys. (Pp 607-611.) IV. A few theories on the subject of justification remain to be stated and examined. (1.) The doctrine held by Bishop Taylor, Arch- bishop Tillotson, and others, that " regener- ation if necessary to justification," is an error whose source appears to be two-fold : (a) from a loose notion of the Scriptural doctrine of re- generation : and (b) from confounding the change which repentance implies, with regen- eration itself. (Pp. 611-614.) (2.) Another theory is that propounded by Bishop Bull, in his Harmonia Ajjostolica, which has taken deep root in the English Church : the doctrine being, that justification is by works ; — those works being such as proceed from faith, are done by the assistance of the Spirit, and

■WOEKS. 115

arc rot meritorious, but a necessary condition of justification. Instead of reconciling St. James to St. Paul, Bishop Bull takes the unusual course of reconciling St. Paul to St. James : but (a.) St. Paul treats the doctrine of justification

professedly; St. James incidentally. (b.) The two apostles are not addressing them- selves to persons in the same circumstances, and hence do not engage in the same argu- ment, (c.) St. Paul and St. James do not use the term justification in the same sense. Lastly, the two apostles agree upon the subject of faith and works. (Pp. 614-619.) (3.) A thii'd theory is maintained by some of the leading divines of the English Church ; which is, that men are justified by faith only, but that faith is mere assent to the truth of the gospel. The error of this scheme consists iii the partial view which is taken of the nature of justifying faith. (4.) A fourth theory defers justification to the

last day. In answer to this, we say, a.) It is not essential to pardon that all its con- sequences should be immediately removed, b.) Acts of private and personal judgment are in

no sense contrary to a general judgment, c.) Justification now, and at the last day, are not the same : — a.) They are not the same act : — b.) They do not proceed upon the same principle.

116 ADOPTION.

(5.) The last theory is that of collective justifica- tion, pi-oposed by Dr. Taylor, of ISTorwich ; which only needs to be stated, not refuted. (Pp. 620- 629.)

B. Concomitants of Justification. (Ch. xxiv. vol. iii. )

Adoption and Regeneration* though different from each other, and from justification, they are not to be separated. They occur at the same time and enter into the experience of the same person.

1. Adoption is that act of the Father by which we who were enemies are made the sons of God and heirs of his eternal glory : and is that state to which belong freedom from a servile spirit, etc. ; with the Spirit of adoption also, or the witness of the Spirit, by which only we can know that the privileges of adoption are ours. The doctiine of the icitness of the Sjnrit is clearly taught in the Epistles : it is sometimes called assurance, but as this phrase has been abused, it should perhaps be cautiously employed. (Pp. 6-8) (1.) There are four opinions on the subject of this testimony of the Spirit.

1. That it is twofold : 1.) A direct testimony of the Spirit: 2.) Au indirect testimony arising from the work of the Spirit in the heart.

* Mr. Watson has fallen into a slight inaccuracy in placing regeneration before adoption. See the note, p. 1 . vol. iii.

WITNESS OF THE SPIEIT. 117

2. That it is twofold, also : 1.) The fruits of the Spirit in the heart of the believer : 2.) The consciousness, on the part of the believer, of possessing faith.

3. That there is but one witness, the Holy Spirit, acting concurrently with our own spirits.

4. That there is a direct witness, which is the special privilege of a few favoured persons. (Pp. 8-10.)

(2.) Observations on these four opinions.

1. All sober divines allow that Christians may attain comfortable persuasions of the divine favour.

2. By those who admit justification, it must be admitted that either this act of merjy must be kept secret from man, or, thei e must be some means of his knowing it : and if the former, there can be no comfortable persuasion, etc., but, on the contrary, Scripture declares that the justified "rejoice."

3. If the Christian, then, may know that he is forgiven, how is this knowledge to be attained 1 The twofold testimony of the Spii'it and the heart declare it. Romans, viii. 16.

4. But does the Holy Spirit give his testimony directly to the mind, or mediately by our own spirits, as Bishop Bull and Mr. Scott affirm ? To the latter doctrine we object, that the witness is still that of our own spirit ; and that but one witness is allowed, while St. Paul speaks of two.

118 EEGENEBATION.

5. Neither the consciousness of genuine repen- tance, nor that of faith, is consciousness of adoption ; and if nothing more be afforded, the evidence of forgiveness is only that of mere inference.

6. " But are not the fruits of the Spirit, love, joy, peace, etc., sufficient proof of our adoption, "without a naore direct testimony?" Nay — these very fruits presuppose, not only a pardon, but a clear persuasion of that pardon. (Pp. 10-21.)

The witness of the Spirit is direct, then, and not

mediate ; nor is this a new doctrine, as may be easily

shown by quotations from Luther, Hooper, Andrews,

Usher, Hooher, etc. The second testimony is that of

our own spirits, not to the fact of our adoption directly,

but to the fact, that we have received the Spirit of

adoption, by which we are regenerated, and that we

are under no delusive impressions. (Pp. 21-25.)

II. Regeneration is that mighty change, wrought in

man by the Holy Spirit restoi-ed unto hin?, by

which the dominion of sin over him is broken, so

that with free choice of will he serves God.

1 . Repentance is not regeneration, but precedes it.

2. Regeneration is not justification, but always accompanies it : which may be proved

(1.) From the nature of justification itself, which takes away the penalty of sin,

(2.) From Scripture : "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature."

3. The regenerate state is also called in Scripture sanctification. (Pp. 1-4.)

ATONEMENT. 119

Digression, on the Extent of the Atonement. (Ch. XXV. — xxviii., Yol. iii.)

Tlie Calvinistic controversy forms a clear case of appeal to the Scriptures, by the light of which we purpose to examine it. In regard to the extent of the atonement,

I. Our proposition is, that Jesus Christ did so die for all 'men, as to make salvation attainable hy all men, and we prove it by

1. Passages which expressly declare the doctrine : (a.) Those which say that ChrLst died '■^ for all

men," and speak of his death as an atonement for the sins of the whole world, (b.) Those which attribute an equal extent to the death of Christ, as to the effects of the fall. (Pp. 26-28.)

2. Passages which necessarily imply the doctrine : , (a.) Those which declare that Christ died, not

only for those that are saved, but for those who do or may perish.

(b.) Those which make it the duty of men to believe the gospel ; and place them under guilt, and the penalty of death, for rejectiug it.

(c.) Those in which men's failure to obtain sal- vation is placed' to the account of their own opposing wills, and made wholly their own fault. (Pp. 29-31.)

II. We have to consider what our opponents have to urge against tliese plain statements of Scripture. lu

120 EXTENT OF

the first place, they have no text whatever to adduce which declares that Christ did not die for the salva- tion of all, as literally as those which declare that he did so die. They merely attempt to explain away the force of the passages we have adduced : thus —

1. To our first class of texts, they object, that the terras, ^- all me7i," and '^ the world" are sometimes used in Scripture in a limited sense. This may be granted ; but the true question yet remains, whether in the above-cited passages they can be understood, except in the largest sense. We deny this,

(1.) Because the universal sense of the terms used, is confirmed either by the context of the pas- sages in which they occur, or by other Scrip- tures. (2.) Nor can the phrases " the world," etc., be paraphrased as " the world of the elect :" for a.) The elect are in Scripture distinguished

from the world. b.) The common division of mankind in the New Testament, is into only two parts, — the disciples of Christ, and " the world." c.) "When the redemption is spoken of, it often includes both those who had been chosen out of the world, and those who remained still of the world, d.) In the general commission, " Go ye into all the world," the expression " into " has its fullest latitude of meaning.

TCHE ATONEMEM'. 121

e.) This restrictive interpretation gives gross

absurdity to sevxjral passages of Scripture.

John iii., U, 17, 18. (Pp. 32-36.)

, To our second class of texts — those whicli imply

the unrestrict'ed extent of Christ's death — certain

qualifying answers are given, thus —

(1.). As to those which speak of Christ having

died for them that perish.

a.) " Destroy not him," etc., Eomans xiv. 15. Poole's paraphrase on this text, " for whom, in the judgment of charity, we may suppose Christ died," completely counteracts the argument of the apostle. Scott, also, by explaining this as a " caution against doing anything which has a tentlency to destroy," takes away, completely, the motive on which the admonition is grounded.

b.) " Denying the Lord that bought them," etc., 2 Pet. ii. 1. The interpretations of Scott and Poole are evasions of the force of the text, which is, that their offence was aggravated, by the fact of Clirist's having bought them.

c.) The case of the apostates, Heb. vi. 4-8, and X. 26-31. Calvinists deny that the apostates referred to were ever true believers or ca- pable of becoming such : — but

1. Paul did not hold out that to the Hebrews as a terror, which he knew to be impossible.

2. If these apostates never were believers, they could not be admonitory examples.

K

122 EXTENT OF

3. To represent their case as a " falling away " — if it had never been hopeful — was an absui-dity of which Paul would not have been guilty.

4. But what the apostle affirms of their previous state, clearly shows that it had been a state of salvation.

5. The Calvinistic interpretations are heloio the force of the terms employed ; and they are above the character of reprobates. (Pp. 37-48.)

(2.) As to those which make it the duty of men to believe the gospel and tin-eaten them with punishment for not believing, — the Calvinistic reply is, that it is the duty of all men to believe the gospel, whether they are interested in the death of Christ or not ; and that they are guilty and deserving of punishment for not belie^^ng. (Pp. 48,49.)— But if Christ died not for all such persons, we think it plain that it cannot be their duty to believe the gospel : and to settle this point, we must determine what is meant by believing the gospel. — The faith which the gospel requires of all, is, '* trust in our Lord Jesus Christ : " trtie faith, then, and not merely assent, is implied in believing the gospel. But, of those for whom Christ did not die, such faith cannr t be required, for,

1. It is impossible.

2. God could not command what he never intended.

THE ATONEMENT. 123

3. What all are bouad to believe in, is true. (Pp. 50-52.) (3.) As to tbe last class of texts, — those wbicb impute the blame and fault of their non-sal- vation to men themselves, the common reply is, that if men willed to come to Christ, they would have life ; but,

1. Put the question to the non-elect ; and either it is possible for them to come to Christ, or it is not ', if the former, then they may come to Christ loithoid receiving salvation : if the latter, then the bar to their salvation is not in themselves.

2. The argument from this class of texts is not exhausted : — for they expressly exclude God from all participation in the destruction of sinners. " God willeth all men to be saved," etc., texts which gave rise to the ancient notion of a secret and revealed will of God, a subterfuge to which, perhaps, few Calvinists in the present day are disposed to resort. (Pp. 52-56.)

Extent of the Atonement — Continued. (Ch. XX vi., Vol. iii.) As the Calvinists have no direct texts in support of their doctrine, they resort mainly to implication and inference. The words election, calling, and foreknowledge, are much relied upon in their arguments. We shall now proceed to examine the Scriptural meaning of them.

124 ELECTION.

1. Election. Three kinds of election are mentioned in Scripture.

(I.) That of individuals to perform some special

, service ; e.g., Cyrus was elected to rebuild the

temple ; — Paul, to be the apostle of the GentUes.

Isaiah xli. 2; xliv. 28; xlv. 1-4; Acts xxvi. 16-18.

(II.) Collective election.

(a.) Explanation of its use in Scripture.

1. Of the Jeios, as the chosen people of God.

2. Of the calling of believers in all nations to be in reality what the Jews had been typi- cally. (Pp. 57-61.)

(b.) Inquiry as to its effect upon the extent of the atonement.

1. With respect to tbe ancient election of the Jewish church,

(1.) That election did not secure the salvation

of every Jew individually. {2.)Siifficient means of salvation were left

to the non-elect Gentiles. (3.) Nay, the election of the Jews was

intended for the benefit of the Gentiles, —

to restrain idolatry and diffuse spiritual

truth.

2. With respect to the election of the Christian cburch,

(1.) That election does not infallibly secure the salvation of the Christian.

(2.) It concludes nothing against the salva- bility of those who are not in the church.

(3.) Christians are thus elected, not in con-

ELECTION. 125

sequence of, or in order to, the exclusion of others, but for the benefit of others as well as themselves. (Pp. 61-63.) (c.) Collective election is frequently confounded with personal election, by Cahdnistic commen- tators, especially in their expositions of Paul's Discourse, Rom. ix. 1-33.

I. Which we shall examine, first, to determine whether personal or collective election be the subject of it.

(1.) The exclusion of the Jews is the first topic : the righteousness of which exclusion Paul vindicates against the objections raised in the minds of the Jews, a.) By showing that God had limited the covenant to a part of the descendants of Abraham ; (1.) In the case of the descend- ants of Jacob himself; — (2.) From Jacob he ascends to Abraham ; v, 7 j — (3.) The instance of Isaac's children, v. 10-13. On the passage, " Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," which has often been perverted, we remark, 1. The apostle is here speaking of " the seed," intended in the promise. 2. This is proved by Gen. XXV. 23, " Two nations ai'e in thy womb," etc. 3. Instances of individual reproba- tion would have been impertinent to the apostle's purpose. (Pp. 64-67.) b.) By asking the objecting Jews to say whether, in these instances, there was a

126 ELECTION.

failure of God's covenant "with Abraham, he expressly denies any unrighteousness in God ; — but, those who would interpret these passages as referring to personal, unconditional election and reprobation, are bound to show how he could be righteous. c.) By the statement, " So then, it is not of him that willeth," etc. : — containing a beautiful allusion to the case of Isaac and and Esau. (2. ) The next point of the discourse is, to show that God exercises the prerogative of making some notorious sinners the sjyecial objects of his displeasure. Here again the example is taken from the Jewish Scriptures ; but ob- serve, it is not Ishmael or Esau, but Pharaoh, a Gentile, who was a most appropriate ex- ample to illustrate the case of the body of the unbelieving Jews, who were, when the apostle wrote, under the sentence of a terrible excision. (3.) In verse nineteen the Jew is again intro- duced as an objector : " Why doth he yet find fault ?" etc. (Pp. 67-71.) (a.) This objection and the apostle's reply are usually interpreted as inculcating upon nations visited with penal inflictions, the impropriety of debating the case with God. This interpretation is hardly satisfactory ; for, 1. What end is answered by teaching a

ELECTION. 127

hopeless people not to "reply against Godi"

2. If this be tlie meaning, the apostle's allusion to the parable of the prophet, Jer., chap, xviii., is inappropriate ; as that parable supposes the time of trial, as to such nations, to be not yet passed.

3. " Dishonour " is not destruction ; no potter makes a vessel on purpose to destroy it.

4. This interpretation supposes that the body of the Jewish nation had anived already at a state of dereliction, which is not the case. (Pp. 71-73.)

(b.) A different view of this part of Paul's discourse is presented. The objection of the Jew goes upon the ground of predesti- nation, which is refuted, not conceded, by the apostle : — as follows,

1. The " vessel " was not made " unto dishonour," until the clay had been "marred:" — i.e., the Jews were not dishonoured, until they had failed to conform with the design of God.

2. Jeremiah, interpreting the parable, represents the " dishonoured " as within the reach of the divine favoui- upon repentance.

3. "What follows verse twenty-two, serves still further to silence the objector. The temporal punishment of the Jews in

128 ELECTION.

Judea is alluded to by tlie apostle, as a proof both, of sovereignty and justice ; but that punishment does not preclude the salvability of the race. (Pp. 74-76.) (c.) The metaphor of "vessels" is still em- ployed, but by " vessels of dishonour," and " vessels of wrath," the apostle means vessels in different conditioiis ; the first, being jxirt of the prophecy which signified the dishonoured state in which the Jews, for j)unisJiment and correction, were placed under captivity in Babylon ; the secooul, with reference to the prophecy in Jere- miah xix. 1-15, had relation to the coming destruction of the temple, city, and polity of the Jews, by the Eomans. There could be no complaint of injustice or unrighte- ousness, in regard to this destruction ; for,

1. It was brought upon themselves by their own sins.

2. Moreover, these vessels — adapted to destruction by their own sins — were endured with much long-suflfering. (Pp. 77-82.) See also Dr. Morisons Expo- sition of Romans ix. 1849.

The X. and xi. chapters of Romans contain nothing but what refers to the collective rejection of the Jewish nation, and the collective election of all believing Jews and Gentiles into the visible church of God. The discourse then can only be interpreted of collective election ; and we now proceed,

ELECTION. 129

II. To examine it secoiully, with reference to the question of uncmiditional election, that is, an election of persons to eternal lite without respect to their faith or obeelience. Such election finds no place in this chapter, though there are several instances of unconditional election, — but we deny that the spiritual blessings of piety spring necessarily from it ; or that unbelief and ruin follow in like manner non-election. The discourse abundantly refutes such opinions. (1.) The descendants of Abraham in the line of Isaac and Jacob were elected, but true faith and salvation did not follow as infallible con- sequents. So were the Gentiles at length elected, but obedience and salvation did not necessarily follow. (2.) The cases of non-election or rejection were not infallibly followed by unbelief, disobedi- ence, and punishment : e.g., the Ishmaelites — the Edomites — the rejected Jews in the apostolic age. (Pp. 82-88.) (3.) The only argument of any weight, for the ground that indivicluah are intended in this discourse, is, that as none are acknowledged to be the true church but true believers, therefore individual election to eternal life must necessarily be included in the notion of collective election ; and that true believers only, under both the old and new dispens- ations, constituted the ^^ election ; " the

130 ELECTION.

" remnant according to the election of grace.^' In this argument there is much error.

1. It is a mere assumption, that the spiritual Israelites, in opposition to Israelites by birth, are anywhere called the " election," or the "remnant," etc.

2. It is not true that under the old dispen- sation, the election of which the apostle speaks was confined to the spiritual seed of Abrahaai : e.g., case of Esau and Jacob, and their descendants.

3. This notion is often grounded on a mis- taken view of verses 6, 7, 8, 9, in this chapter ; the view, namely, that in this passage Paul distinguishes between the spiritual Israelites, and those of natural descent; while the fact is, that he distin- guishes between the descendants of Abra- ham in a certain line, and his other descendants.

4. Though we grant that the election of bodies of men to church privileges involves the election of individuals into the true church — still this last, as Scripture plainly testifies, is not unconditional, as the former is, but depends upon theii' repentance and faith.

We have thus showTi that the apostle treats of unconditional collective election, but not of un- conditional individual election. (Pp. 88-98.)

ELECTION. 131

(III.) The third kind of election is jjersorud elec- tion : or the choice of individuals to be the heirs of eternal life.

a.) It is not denied that true believers are styled in Scripture the " elect of God : " but the question arises, What is the import of that act of grace which is termed " an election ? " We find it explained in two clear passages of Scrip- ture ; — to be elected, is to be separated from " the world," and to be " sanctified by the Spirit, and by the blood of Christ;" hence, election is not only an act done in ti77ie, but subsequent to the administration of the means of salvation. John xv. 19 ; 1 Peter i. 2. b.) The Calvinistic doctrine that God hath from eternity chosen unto salvation a set number of men tmto faith and final salvation, presents a diflFereut aspect, and requires an appeal to the word of God. It has two parts ; 1, The choosing of a determinate number of men : and 2, that this election is unconditional. (Pp. 98-99.) A. As to the choosijtg of a determinate number of men, it is allowed by Calvinists that they have no express Scriptural evidence for this tenet. And

(1.) As to God's eteriud purpose to elect, we know nothing except from revelation, and that declares, (a) that he willeth all men to be saved ; (b) that Christ died for all men, in order to the salvation of all ; and (c) the

132 ELECTION.

decree of God is, " He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned : " and if God be unchangeable, this must have been his decree from all eternity : (d) if the fault of men's destruction lies in tJiemselves, — as we have proved, — then the number of the elect is capable of increase and diminution. (2.) This doctrine necessarily cames with it that of the unconditional rejyrohatiwi of all mankind, except the elect, which cannot be reconciled, (a) with the love of God: — (b) with the wisdom of God : — (c) with the grace of God : — (d) with the corajyassion of God : — (e) with the justice of God : — (f) with the sincerity of God: — (g) with the Scriptural doctrine that God is no res2>ecter of persons : — (h) with the Scriptural doc- trine of the eternal salvation of infants : — (i) and, finally, with the proper end of 2)unitive justice. (Pp. 100-109).

B. We consider now the second branch of this doctrine, — that personal election is U7i- conditional.

(1.) Accoi'ding to this doctrine, the church of God is constituted on the sole principle of the divine purpose, not upon the basis of faith and obedience^ which manife.'^tly contradicts the word of God. (2.) This doctrine of election without respect to faith contradicts the history of the

ELECTION. 133

commencement and first constitution of the church of Christ.

(3.) There is no such doctrine in Scripture as the election of individuals unto faith ; and it is inconsistent with several passages which speak expressly of personal elec- tion : e.g., John xv. 19 ; 1 Pet. i. 2 ; 2 Thess. ii. 13, 14. (Pp. 109-114.)

(4.) There is another class of texts, referring to believers, not individually, but as a body forming the church of Christ, which texts, containing the word " election," are ingeniously or perversely applied by Cal- viuists to the support of their doctrine, when in fact they do not contain it. Such is Eph. L 4, 5, 6. Ilow in regard to this text, it might be shown, (a) that if per- sonal election were contained in it, the choice spoken of, is not of men merely, but of believing men ; but, (b) it does not contain the doctrine of personal election, but that of the eternal purpose of God to constitute his visible church no longer ' upon the ground of descent from Abraham, but on that oi faith in Christ.

(5.) Finally, the Calvinistic doctrine has no stronger passage to lean iipon. We con- clude by asking, if this doctrine be true, (a.) Why are we commanded "to make our election surel" (b.) Where does Scrip- ture tell us of elect unbelievers ? (c. ) And

134 CALLING.

how can the Spirit of truth convince such of sin and danger, when they are, in fact, in no danger? (Pp. 114-118.)

II. Having thus considered election, we come now to examine those texts which speak of the calling and predestination of believers.

(I.) The words ^'^ calV and " calling ^^ occur fre- qviently in the New Testament. The parable in Matthew xxii. 1-14 seems to have given rise to many of these ; and a clear interpretation of it will explain the use of the phrase in most other passages. See also Dr. Morisons Commentary, a.) Three classes of persons are called in the parable: — (1.) The disobedient persons who made light of the call. (2.) Those embraced in the class of " destitute of the wedding gar- ment." (3.) The approved guests, b.) As to the "call itself, — (1.) The three classes are on an equality. (2.) No irresistible influence is employed. (3.) They are called into a com- pany, or society, before which the banquet is spread. These views explain the passages in which the term is used in the epistles ; in none of them is the exclusive calling of any set number of men contained. (Pp. 119-122.) (II.) The Synod of Dort attempted (p. 122) to reason the doctrine from Romans viii. 30. But this passage says nothing of a " set and determinate number of men:" — it treats indeed of the privi-

CALLING. 135

leges and hopes of believers, but not as secured

to tbem by any such decree as the Synod of Dort

advocates ; for,

(1.) The matter would haA'e been out of place in St. Paul's lofty and animating conclusion of his argument on justification by faith.

(2.) The context relieves the text of the cqypear- ance of favouring the doctrine.

(3.) The apostle does indeed speak of the fore- knowledge of believers, taken distributively and personally, to chuTch privileges, but this strengthens our argument against the use of the passage made by the Synod of Dort ; for 1. Foreknowledge may be simple approval, as in Romans xi. 2 ; and 2. If it be taken in this passage in the sense of simple prescience, it will come to the same issue : for believers, if foreknown at all, in any other sense than all men are foreknown, must have been foreknown as believers.

(4.) As to the predestination spoken of in the text, the way is now clear : the foreknovm, believers were predestinated, called, justified, and glorified. (Pp. 123-130.)

Examination of certain Passages of Scripture

SUPPOSED TO LIMIT THE EXTENT OF ChRIST's

Redemption. (Ch. xxvii. vol. iii.)

1. John vi, 37, "All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me ; and him that cometh to me, I

136 CALLING.

will in no wise cast out." The Calvinistic view of this text is, that a certain number were ^^ given " to Christ ; and as none others can came to him, the doctrine of distinguishing grace is established. (1.) Our first objection to this view is, that Christ

placed the reason of the Jews' not coming, in

themselves, John v, C8, 40, 44, 46. (2.) The phrase, '■'■ to he given" hj the Father to

Christ, is abundantly explained by the context.

(Pp. 131-134.)

2. Matthew xx. 15, 16. The Calvinistic view here is, that God has a right, on the principle of pure sovereignty, to afford grace to some, and to leave others to perish in their sins. The fact that this passage is the conclusion of the parable of the vine- yard is sufficient refutation of the interpretation.

3. 2 Tim. ii. 19. This text bears no friendly aspect toward Calvinism.

4. John x. 'Id, " But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." It is a suffi- cient reply to the Calvinistic view of this text, to state that men are called " the sheep of Christ "in regard to their qualities and acts, and not with reference to any supposed transaction between the Father and Christ,

5. John xiii. 18. The tei-m " knoio " in this text is evidently used in the sense of discriminating cha- racter.

6. John XV. 16. The word '^chosen" in this text is gratuitously interpreted (by Calvinists) as relating to an eternal election ; but Christ had " chosen them

CALLING. 137

out of the loorld," which must have been done in time — when they were in the world.

7. 2 Timothy i. 9, " Who hath saved ns, and called UK with a holy calling,'* etc. — No 2}ersonid flection .spoken of here : — the parallel passagd, Eph. iii. 4-6, shows that the apostle was treating of the divine purpose to form the church out of both Jews and Gentiles.

8. Acts xiii. 48, "And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." (Pp. 134-140.)

(1.) If the Grentiles, who believed, only did so because they were '• ordained " so to do, then the Jews, who believed not, were not guilty, as it is affirmed, of putting the word away from them.

(2.) The Calvinistic view carries with it the notion that all the elect Gentiles at Antioch believed at once, and that no more remained to be converted.

(3.) Some Calvinists render the words " c?e<ermi?iec?," or '•' ordered," for eternal life.

(4.) In no place in the New Testament where the same word occurs, is it ever employed to convey the meaning of destiny, or predestination. (Pp. 140-142.)

9. Luke X. 20. Our Calvinistic friends forget, in interpreting this text, that names may be " blotted out of the book of life."

10. Prov. xvi. 4. The meaning is, that God renders even those who have made themselves wicked, and remain incorrigibly so, the instruinents of glorifying his justice, in their punishment.

L

198 ELECTION.

11. John xii. 37, 40. Qiiotetions from Isaiah liii. 1 ; ^'i. 9, 10. In examining these passage.«i, we find, (1.) That they do not affirm that the eyes of the

Jews should be blinded by a divine agency, as Mr. Scott and the Calrinists assume. In every view of the passages, the responsible agent is " THIS PEOPLE " — the perverse and obstinate Jews themselves.

(2.) A simple prophecy is not a declaration of 7?2/r- ]}ose at all ; but the declaration of a future event.

(3,) Even admitting the Calvinistic view of tlie pas- sages, they would afford no T^roof of gejieral election and reprobation, since they have application to the xm believing part of the Jews only. (Pp. 14C-147.)

12. Jude 4. These certain men had heeu foj'etold in the Script\u'es, or their punishment typically pre- dicted. There is nothing here of eternal pwpose.

13. 1 Cor. iv. 7, " For who maketh thee to differ from another/" A favourite argument with Calvinists is founded on this text ; and a dilemma raised, on the supposition of gospel offers being made to two men, why one accepts and the other rejects ? They answer that election alone solves the question. But (1.) Put the question as to one man, at two different

2)eriods : — and election will not solve this diffi- culty : of course, then, it will not solve the other.

(2.) The question of the apostle has reference to gijis and endovmieats, not to a difference in reli- gious state.

(3.) Following out their view, the doctrine would follow that sufficiency of grace is denied to the

PKEDESTINATION. 139

wicked, and that their unbelief is not from them- selves, which would remove their responsibility. 14:. Acts xviii. 9, 10, " . . for I have much people in this city." This may mean, either that there •were many devout people in the city : — or that there would be many subsequently converted there. (Pp. 147-156.)

Theories which limit the extent of the Death OF Christ. (Ch. xxviii., vol. iii.)

We shall notice in this chapter the doctrines of pre- destination, etc.

I. As stated by Calvin himself, a7id by Calvinistic theologians a/nd churches. (I. ) Calvin.

1. Statement of his opinions from the " Insti- tutes."

2. His answers to objections shown to be weak and futile, e.g.,

a.) The objection that the system is unjust] which he answers by asserting that it is the will of God — thus making four evasions, 1, 2 3 4

w, u, -r.

b.) The objection that if corruption is the cause of man's destruction, the corruption itself was an effect of the divine decree ; which he answers by referring again to the sovereign will of God. (Pp. 157-163.)

3. His attempts to reconcile his doctrine with man's demerit, and to relieve it of the charge

140 SUPRALAPSARIANISM.

of making God the author of sin, shown to be feeble and contradictory.

4. His system not reducible to sublapsarianism.

5. His tenets shown to be in opposition to the doctrines of the first ages.

6. Their history from the time of Augustine to Calvin. (Pp. 164-171.)

(TI.) Calvinistic theologians and churches.

1. Three leading theories prevalent among the

reformed churches prior to the Synod of Dort.

a.) Sujyrakqjsarian : — (1.) Decree: to save certain men by grace, and to condemn others by justice. (2.) Means: creation of Adam, and ordination of sin. (3.) Operatio7i : ir- resistible grace producing faith and final salvation, (4.) Result : that reprobates have no grace, and no capacity of believing and of being saved.

b.) Also supralapsarian, but differing somewhat from a.), in this, that it does not lay down the creation or the fall as a mediate cause, foreordained of God for the execution of the decree of reprobation ; but yet Arminius shows that, according to this view, the fall is a tiecessary means for its exercise, and thus God is made the author of sin. (Pp. 171- 174.)

c.) Sublapsarian, in which man, as the object of predestination, is considered as fallen. (1.) Statement of the doctrine. Its basis is, that the whole human race, personally and

SUBLAPSARIANISM. 141

individually, are liable to eternal death in consequence of Adam's transgi'ession. (2-) Refutation. " The wages of sin is death," but " sin is the transgression of the law."

1. If the race be contemplated as contained seminally in Adam, then the whole race would have perished in Adam, without the vouchsafement of mercy to any.

2. If contemplated as to have not only a potential but a real existence, then the doctrine is, that every man of the race is absolutely liable to eternal death for the sin of Adam, to which he was not a consenting party. (Pp. 174-177.)

3. If the foreknowledge of actual trans- gression be contemplated by the decree, then the actual sins of men are either evi table or necessary, — if the former, then reprobates may be saved : if the latter, none are responsible.

4. It is alleged that Paul represents all men under condemnation to eternal death in consequence of their connection with the first Adam : but,

a.) In the gospel " this is the condem- nation, that men love darkness rather than light : " — hence the previous state of condemnation was not un- alterable.

b.) In the Scriptures final condemnation is

142 CONFESSIONS.

never placed upon the ground of Adam's offence, but always on actual sin. c.) The true sense of the apostle in Komans v. is to be obtained from a careful examination of the entire argument : — he is not representing, as Calvinists have it, the condition in which the human race toould have been, if Christ had not interposed, but its actual condition, both in con- sequence of the fall of man and the intervention of Christ. (Pp. 177-184.)

2. Decisions of the Synod of JDort : from Scott's translation of the " Judgment of the Synod," etc., read in the great church at Dort, in 1619.

By extracts from Acts i, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 15, it is clear that Dr. Heylin gave a true summary of the eighteen articles on predestination, in the following words : — " That God, by an absolute decree, hath elected to salvation a veiy small number of men, without any regard to their faith and obedience whatsoever ; and excluded from saving grace all the rest of mankind, and appointed them by the same decree to eternal damnation, without any regard to theLr infidelity and impenitency." (Pp. 185-192.)

3. The church of Scotland expresses its doctrine on these topics in the answers to the 12th and 13th questions of its Larger Catechism; in which there appears a strict conformity to the doc- trines of Calvin.

BAXTERIANISM. l^S

4. The church of the Vaudois, in Piedmont, by the Confession of a.d. 1120, establish the doc- trine that Christ died for the salvation of the whole world ; but in the seventeenth century l^astors were intix)duced from Geneva, and the Confession of 1655 embraces the doctrine, and almost the very words, of Calvin on this point.

5. The French clmrches, in their Confession of 1558, declare Calviuistic sentiments, but the expressions' are guarded and careful.

G. The Westminster Confession, gives the senti- ments of the English Presbyterian churches, and of the Church of Scotland. In chapter iii. the doctrine of predestination is advanced in conformity with th-e most unmitigated parts of Calvin's Institutes. 7. The Seventeenth Article oj the Church of Eng- land, and other Confessions, are carefully and guardedly expressed. (Pp. 192-196.) II. As held in certain modifications of the Ccdvinistic scheme.

(I.) Baxtericmism, advanced by Richard Baxter in his treatise of Universal Redemption, and in his Metlwdus TheologioB : — but derived from the writings of Camero, and defended by Auiyraut and others.

1. It diners from high Calvinism, as to the doc- trine of satisfaction : — as the system explicitly asserts that Christ made satisfaction by his death equally for the sins of every man. Baxter draws many " absurd consequents from the

144 BAXTEKIAXTSM.

doctrine "which denieth universal satisfaction." (Pp. 107-206.) 2. But from an examination of his entire scheme, it amounts only to this, — that although a con- ditional satisfaction has been pvirchased by- Chris t for all men, yet Christ has not purchased for all men the power of performing the re- quired condition of salvation. — Baxter gives to the elect irresistible effectual grace ; but to others, sufficient grace, which is called by him- self, aptly enough, " sufficient ineffectual grace." He admits that all men may have grace to bring theiu nearer Christ; but coming neai'er to Christ, and nearer to saving faith, aije with him quite distinct. His concern seems to be, to show, not how the non-elect might be saved, but how they might with some plausibility be damned. Quotations from Curcellaeus, Dr. Womack, and Maclaine, are in point. (Pp. 206-211.) (II.) Dr. Williams's scheme is in substance the same as the theory of supralai>sarian reprobation. In all other mitigated schemes, the " sufficiency of grace " is understood in Baxter's sense. The labour of all these theories, (including those of Dr. Payne and Dr. Wardlaio,) is to find out some })i-etext for punishing those that perish, indepen- dent of the Scriptural reason, their rejection of a mercy free for all. (P. 212.)

III. As to their oHgin. Those theories seem to have

DECREES. 145

arisen not from a careful examination of the Scrip- tures, but from metaphysical subtleties, for by these • they hav^e, at all times, been chiefly supported. (I. ) Eternal decrees.

1. This term is nowhere employed in the Scrip- tures; its signification, if it be used at all, must be controlled by Scripture. The decrees of God can only Scrip burally signify the determination of his will in his government of the world he has made.

2. These decrees are, in the Scriptures, referred to two classes : — (1) a determination to do certain things ; and (2) a determination to permit certain things to be done by free and account- able creatures. This last does not involve the consequence of making God the author of sin.

3. That many of the divine decrees ai-e conditional we have the testimony of Scripture, which abounda with examples of decrees to which conditions are annexed. We have also in- stances, as in the case of Eli, of the revocation of the divine decrees. (Pp. 21-3-223.)

(II.) TJie prescience of God.

1. The Calvinistic pojndar argument is, that as the final condition of every man is foreseen, it must be certain, and therefore inevitable and necessary. The answer is, that certainty and necessity are two perfectly distinct predica- ments ; as certainty exists in the mind foreseeing, but necessity qualifies the action foreseen.

146 PRESCIENCE.

2. The scholastic argument.

(a.) The Schoolmen distinguished between

(1.) Scientia indefinita — the knowledge of

possible things, and (2.) Scientia visionis^

the knowledge which God has of all real

existences : — to which the anti-predestina-

rians added (3.) Scientia media, to express

God's knowledge of the actions of free agents,

and the divine acis consequent upon them.

(b.) Absolute predestination is identified with

scientia visionis by the Calvinists : illustrated

by an extract from Ilill's Lectures. (Pp.

223-230.)

The sophistry of Dr. Hill's statement lies in this,

that the determination of the divine will to produce

the universe is made to include a determination "to

produce the whole series of beings and events that

were then future : " — while among the " beings " to be

produced were some endowed with free will. If this

be denied, then man is not accountable for his pei'sonal

offences : if allowed, then his (say) sinful acts cannot

have been determined in the same manner by the

divine will, as the production of the universe and the

beings which composed it. (Pp. 230-231.)

(Til.) The human will.

1. Calvinists find it necessary to the consistency of their theory that the volitions, as well as the acts, of man should be placed in bondage : and their doctrine, fairly stated, is, that the will is determined to one class of objects, no other

HUMAN WILL. 147

being possible. The Scriptural doctrine is, that, by the grace of God, man, who without" that grace would be morally incapable of choosing any thing but evil, is endowed with the power of choosing good. (P. 232.) 2. More moderate Calvinists contend that trans- gressors are responsible for their evil acts, because they are done willingly, although their will could not but choose them. We reply, that this is only the case where the time of trial is past, as in devils and apostates; and then only because these are personally guilty of having vitiated their own wills : but the case is different as to probationers ; for, (1.) It is decided by the word of God, that

men who perish might have " chosen life." (2.) The natural reason of mankind is in dii-ect opposition to the doctrine. (Pp. 233-236.) 3. The metaphysical doctrine is, that the will is swayed by motives which arise from circum- stances beyond the control of man ; but, (1.) This still leaves us in the difficulty, that men are bound by a chain of events estab- lished by an Almighty power. (2.) The doctrine is contradicted by the Ian-

gitage of men in all countries and ages, (3.) We deny the necessary connection between motive and volition : that the mind acts generally under the influence of motives may be granted, but that it is operated upon by them necessarily, is contradicted,

148 SOVEEEIGNTY.

(a.) By tlie fact of our often acting under the weakest reason, which is the character of all sins against judgment ; and (b.) By the fact that we have power to dis- place one motive by another, and to control those circumstances from which motives flow. (Pp. 237-240.) See also Z>r. Tappan's Treatise on the Will, p. 340 ; 1860. (IV.) The divine sovereignty.

The Calvinistic doctrine is, that God does what he wills, only because he wills it. But it can be shown from Scripture, that the acts of the divine will are under the direction of the divine wisdom, goodness, Sind justice. fPp. 240—243.) ( V.) The case of heathen nations is sometimes re- ferred to by Calvinists as presenting equal difficulties to those ui-ged against election and reprobation. But the cases are not parallel, unless it be granted that the heathen, as such, are excluded from heaven.

1. Heathen are bad enough, but the question is not what they are, but what they might be : — they are under the patriarchal dispensation ; and

2. St. Paul affirms that the divine law has not perished from among them, but that if they live up to the light which they possess, they may be saved. (Pp. 244-246.)

( VI.) Irresistible grace. We admit that man in his simply natural state, is insufficient of himself to think or do any thing of a saving tendency ; and

SANCTIFICATION. 149

that when the Holy Spirit is vouchsafed, we are often entirely passive in the first instance ; but we contend that the grace of God has been be- stowed upon all men, inasmuch as all are required to do those things which have a saving tendency. These premises

1. Establish the justice of God in the condem- nation of men, and

2. Secure the glory of our salvation to the gi'ace of God. (Pp. 246-251.)

C. Further Beitefits of Redemption. (Ch. xxix.. Vol. iii.) I. Entire sanctification of believers.* That there is a distinction between a regenerate state and a state of perfect holiness, is sufficiently proved by the ex- hortations to believers, in 1 Thess. v. 23, and 2 Cor. viL 1 — " perfecting holiness in the fear of God." 1 . The time when we are to expect this blessing has been disputed : it is admitted that the soul must be entirely cleansed before it can pass into heaven,

* The terms "entire sanctification" and "perfect holiness" are evidently used by Mr. Watson, as by many others, to desig- nate the same work of grace. The Venerable Hugh Bourne, however, distinguished the one from the other ; and his distinction is not without a difference. The doctrinal statement in the Deed Poll is — " Sanctification by the Holy Spirit, producing inward and outward holiness." Mr. Bourne understood sancti- fication as designating the state of mind superinduced by the restoration of the Holy Spirit ; while perfect holiness, in all the activities of the heart and life, is represented as being produced by the sanctification of the Spirit. The passage in 1 Thess. v. 2.3 does not refer to the entire sanctification of the individual, but to the sanctification of the whole church.

150 SANCTIFICATION.

but many contend that the final stroke to cor- ruption can only be given at death : — but (1.) The promise of panctification is nowhere restricted in Scripture to the article of death. (2.) The soul's union with the body is nowhere represented as a necessaiy obstacle to its entii'e sanctifieation. Romans vii. has indeed been ad- duced in proof of this ; but the apostle is giving the experience of one yet under the law, and not in a state of deliverance by Christ. (3.) This doctrine is disproved by those passages which connect sanctifieation with the subsequent exhibition of its fruits in life. Rom. vi. 22. (4.) It is disproved, also, by all those passages which require us to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit ; for these are required of us in per- fection and matux'ity, and necessarily suppose the entire sanctifieation of the soul from the opposite and antagonist evils. Eph. v. 9 ; Gal. v, 22. (5.) This doctrine involves other antiscriptural consequences — that the seat of sin is in the flesh ; and that the flesh must not only lust against the Spirit, but on many occasions be the conqueror. Matt. v. 8; Heb. xii. 14. We conclude, then, tb.at as sanctifieation can neither be referred to the hour of death nor placed subsequently to this life, it is an attain- ment to which believers are called during this life. (Pp. 251-258.) See also Dr. Morison's Exposition of the Third Chapter of Romans pp. 415-421. 1866.

RESURRECTION. 1£1

2. The manner of sanctification. It may be (1) gradual, or f-) instantaneous.

3. Objections to this doctrine.

(1.) It supposes future impeccability. Nay, the angels sinned, and so did our first parents.

(2.) It renders the atonement and intercession of Christ superfluous. Nay, for this state of sanctification is maintained by the constant influences of the Holy Spirit, vouchsafed through Christ's intercession.

(3.) It shuts out the use of the prayer, " forgive us our trespasses." But, a) this prayer is designed for men in a mixed condition : b) all sin must not be continued in order that this prayer may be employed : and c) the defects and infirmities of a being naturally imperfect, are not inconsistent with moral holiness. (Pp. 258-260.)

II. The right to iway is another benefit which accrues to believers : and so is

III. Tlie, special in'ovidence of God.

IV. Victory over death is also awarded to them.

V. The immediate reception of the soul into a state of blessedness. " The sacred writers proceed on the supposition that the soul and the body are naturally distinct and separable, and that the soul is sus- ceptible of pain or pleasure during that separation." Quotation from Campbell. (Pp. 260-265.)

VI. Resurrection of the body. There is some dispute in regard to this doctrine, whether it implies a re-

152 RESURRECTION.

snrrection of the substance of the body, or of a minute and indestructible germ.

1. The only passage of Scripture which seems to favour the germ theory, is 1 Cor. xv. 35, " How are the dead raised up ? and with what body do they cornel " These two questions both imply a doubt as to the fact — not an inquiry as to the modus agendi : and the apostle answers them by showing, in answer to the Ji7-st question, that there is nothing incredible in the thing : and in answer to tlie second, that the doctrine of our reunion with the body implies nothing contrary to the hopes of liberntion from the "burden of this flesh," because of the glorified qualities which God is aV)le to give to matter.

2. There are several dijfficidties connected with this theory : for on its hypothesis

(1.) There is no resurrection of the body: for the

germ cannot be called the body. (2.) There is no resurrection from deatJi at all, but a vegetation from a secret principle of life. (3.) It is substantially the same with the pagan doctrine of metempsychosis. An objection to the resurrection of the body has been di-awn from the changes of its siibstance during life. This does not affect the doctrine that the body which is laid in the grave shall be raised up. " But," we are told, " the same bodies that sin may not be punished." We answer, that the soul is the only rewai'dable sxd>ject, — the body is its instrument. (Pp. 265-274.)

MORAL LAW. 153

paet third.

Morals of Christianity. Outline. (I.) The moral law. (Ch. i.) (II.) The duties we owe to God. (Ch. ii., iii.) (III.) Duties to our neighbour. (Ch. iv.)

(1.) The Moral Law. (Ch. i,, Vol. iii.)

Preliminary observations, —

(1.) The morals of the New Testament are not

presented to us in the form of a regular code. (2.)' The divine authority of the Old Testament is everywhere presupposed. (Pp. 275-276.) I. The moral laws of the Old Testament pass into the Chi'istian code.

1. The ceremonial law is repealed, being adumbra- tive and temporary ;

2. The political law also ; but

3. The moral precepts are not repealed ; but even incidentally re-enacted, scil, Christ's declaration, " I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil ;" and Paul's, "Do we then make void the law through faith 1" The argument, then, from the want of formal re-enactment, has no weight. See also Dr. James Morison's Critical Exposition of the Third Chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, pp. 134-204, 413 ; 1866.

H

154 MORALS.

4. The entire decalogue is brought into the Christian code by a distinct injunction of its separate pre- cepts. (Pp. 276-279.) II. These laivs, in the Christian code, stand in other and higher circumstances than under the Mosaic dis- pensation.

1. They are extended more expressly to the heart.

2. They are carried out into a greater variety ot duties.

3. There is a more enlarged injunction of positive and particular virtues.

4. All overt acts are connected with cori-esponding principles.

5. These laws are connected with promises of divine assistance.

6. They have a living illustration in the example of Christ.

7. They are connected with higher sanctions. (Pp. 279-281.)

JIT. All attempts to teach morals, indepe-iident of Christianity, must he of mischievous tendency.

1. Because such attempts convey the impression that reason alone could discover the duty of man.

2. Because they displace what is perfect for what is hnperfect.

3. Because they turn away from the revealed law to inferior considerations, such as beauty, fitness, etc.

4. Because they either enjoin duties merely oiitward in the act, or else assume that human nature is able to cleanse itself.

MORALS. 155

5. Beciause that bj separating doctrines from morals, they propose a new plan, other than that of the gospel, for renovating and moralizing tlie world. Yet moral philosophy, if properly guarded, and taken in connection with the whole Christian system, is not to be undervalued. (Pp. 281-284 )

IV. As to the reasons on which moral inecepts rest, it may be remarked,

1. Some rest wholly on the authority of a revealer ;

2. Others are accompanied with mauifest rational evidence ;

3. Others partially disclose their rationale to the anxious inquirer. (Pp. 284-285.)

V. With respect to the apjylication of general 2^'>"6ce2its, wide obsex'vation is necessary.

1. The precepts must be mostly general,

2. Exceptions to general rules should be watched with jealousy. (Pp. 285-286.)

VI. Gr omuls of moral obligation.

1. " Eternal and necessary fitness of things " leaves the question still open.

2. " Moral sense," also unsatisfactory ; for

(a.) Its indications are neither perfect nor uni- form. (b.) Its mandates have no authority.

3. " Doctrine of the greatest good," — circuitous and impossible in practice.

4. The will of God, then, the only true ground of moral obligation. The obligation is founded on the relation of the creature to the Creator. (Pp. 286-288.)

lob DUTIES TO GOD.

VII. Nature of moral rectitude. (Payne's view.)

1. We sustain various relations to God.

2. We sustain various relations to each other.

Virtue is the conformity or harmony of man's affec- tions or actions, with the various relations in which he has been placed : and since these re- lations were constituted by God, rectitude may be regarded as conformity to the moral nature of God, the iiltimate standard of virtue. (Pp. 288-291.)

(II,) The Duties we owe to God. (Ch. ii., Vol. iii.) Summed up in Scripture under the word godliness, embracing I. Internal 'principles. 1. Submission to God.

(a.) Grounded on the obligations (1) of creation,

(2) of redemption, (b.) Regulated by his will, which is the highest rule of moral virtue,

(1) Because of its authority.

(2) Because it defines and enforces every branch of duty.

(3) Because it anniils every contrary rule.

(4) Because, instead of lowering its claims to suit man's weakness, it connects itself with the offer of strength from on higb.

(5) Because it accommodates itself to no man's interests.

(6) Because it admits no exceptions in obe- dience. (Pp. 292-293.)

PRATER.

157

2. Love to God. (a^ Its nature.

(b) Its importance in securing obedience. (Pp. 293-296.)

3. Trust in God.

(a) Grounded on the divine injimction : probable reason, to secure our peace of mind.

(b) Measured by tlie divine promises of help in the word of God.

(c) Hence connected with conversion, necessarily, (Pp. 296-298.)

4. Fear of God,

(a.) Its nature : (1.) Reverential, not servile, yet (2.) Involving a sense of our conditional lia- bility to his displeasure,

(b.) Its practical influence.

5. Holiness rests upon these moral principles and habits. (Pp. 299-301.)

II. External duties. A. Prayer.

(a.) It is enjoined in Scripture, Matt. vii. 7 ; Luke xxi. 36 j Phil. iv. 6 ; 1 Thess. v. 17 ; what it is required to be (1.) Earnest, John iv. 24; Rom. xii. 12^ (2.) Importunate, Luke xi. 1-13; 2 Corinthians xii. 8, 9; (3.) Offered for particular blessings, Phil. iv. 6 ; Psalm cxxii. 6 ; Zech. x. 1 ; 1 Tim. ii. 1-3, etc. (b.) The reason on which it rests. We can infer from Scripture,

1. That it cannot of itself produce in man a fitness for the reception of God's mercies.

1 58 PRATER.

2. That it is not an histrument Lnt a condition of grace.

3. But that it preserves in men's minds a sense of God's agency in tlie world, and of the dependence of all creatvires upon him. (Pp. 301-306.)

(c.) Objections to this duty.

1. One is founded on predestination.

a. Answer on predestinarian principles — insufficient and contradictory.

b. True answer, that although God has ab- solutely predetermined some things, there are others whicli he has conditionally pre- determined. ,

2. A second is founded on the perfections of the divine character. Paley's answer.

3. A third is, that it is hard to conceive how prayer can affect the case of others.

a. If it were so, that would not afiect the duty.

b. But it is no harder to conceive than why one man's virtues or vices should affect the condition of others, which is the case every day. (Pp. 307-310.)

(d.) Div{sio7i of prayer. Pour branclies.

1. Ejaculatory.

a. Its nature, b. Its advantages.

2. Private.

a. Founded upon Christ's injunction and example.

PRAYEE. 159

h. Designed to produce unlimited confidence in God our Father. (Pp. 311-312.)

3. Family.

a. Paley's view of it defective.

b. Its obligation shown, (1.) From the very constitution of a family. (2.) From the fact that the earliest patriarchal worship was family worship, which was not revoked either by Judaism or Christianity.

c. Its advantages. (Pp. 312-318.)

4. Public.

a. Its obligation shown. (1.) From the example of public worship among the Jews. (2.) By inference from the command to publish the gospel, implying assemblies. (3.) By direct precepts, e.g., Paul's Epistles are commanded to be read in the churches. (4.) From the practice of the primitive age, shown from St. Paul and St. Clement.

b. Its advantages. (Pp. 318-320.) (e.) Forvis of prayer.

1. "Worship should be spiritual — which was doubtless the character of that of the primi- tive chux-ch. Latin and Greek corruptions. The Kturgies of the reformed churches puri- fied from these corruptions.

2. Objections to forms of prayer, a. Absolute. But

(1.) This objection involves principles

which cannot be acted upon. (2.) It disregards example and antiquity.

160 PRAYEK.

Example of the Jews : of John Baptist : of Christ : of the primitive church. (Pp. 320-325.)

b. It is objected that " forms composed for one age become unfit for another." But (1.) The form may be modified.

(2.) In fact, such forms have not become

obsolete among us. (3.) If opinions become unscriptural, the

form is a safeguard against heresy.

c. " The repetition of the form produces weariness and inattention." Answer. (1.) The devout will not grow weary. (2.) The undevout will, even if extempore

prayers are used.

d. " Fonns must take too general a cha- racter." Ans.

(1.) This is not true of the Liturgy of the

Church of England. (2.) If extempore prayer be allowed also,

the objection has no weight. (Pp.

325-326.) 3. Objections to extempore prayer.

a. It gives rise to extravagant addresses to God. Ans. This will only be the case where the preachers are foolish or incom- petent.

b. It confuses the minds of the hearers. Ans. This lay against the inspired prayers in the Bible when first uttered ; and would

THE SABBATH. 161

now lie against all occasional forms.

Facts, too, disprove it. 4. Conclusion. That each mode has its ad- vantages, and that their proper combination forms the best public service. (Pp. 327- 328.)

B. Praise aiul thanksgiving.

a. Psalms and hymns to be sung with the voice, and united with the melody of the heart, are of apostoHc injunction.

b. Uses. 1) To acknowledge God ; 2) To pro- mote suitable sentiments of gratitude and dependence in our hearts. (P. 328.)

(Ch. iii., Vol. iii.)

C. Observance of the Lord's day. I. Obligation.

(I.) Though the observance is nowhere enjoined in so many words, yet, on the supposition that the sabbath was instituted at the creation, we derive its obligation with great clearness from the Scriptures, a. As to the observance of a sabbath in general.

(1.) Iriferentially, from the history of its observance from the creation down to the period of the gospel narrative, while no Scripture indicates its abolition. (2.) Directly, since the decalogue is binding on us, proved,

(a.) By our Lord's declaration that

162 THE SABBATH.

he " came not to destroy the law and the prophets." (b.) By the text, " The sabbath was

made for man."

(c.) By St. Paul's reply, (Bom. iii.

31,) " Do we then make void the

law through faith?" (Pp. 329-

333.)

b. As to the observance of a particular day.

(1.) The change from the seventh to the

first day was made by inspired men. (2.) This change did not alter the law of the sabbath, which was not so circum- stantial as to I'equire uniform modes of reckoning time, and observance of lati- tudes and longitudes for its fulfilment. (3.) The original command says nothing of the epoch when the reckoning should begin. Holden. (4.) But, for the sake of j)uhlic worship), the sabbath should be uniformly ob- served by a whole community at the same time. (Pp. 333-337.) (TI.) But it has been denied that the sabbath was instituted at the creation, a. Paley's ground, as summed up and ans- wered by Holden. His principal ground is, " that the first institution of the sabbath took place during the sojourning of the Jews in the wilderness," and from the passage in Exod. xvi. he infers

THE SABBATH. 163

1. " That if the sabbath had been insti- tuted at creation, there would be some mention of it in the history of the patri- archal ages." But this history is very brief : there are omissions in it more extraordinary, e.g., prayer and circum- cision : the sabbath is hardly mentioned in Joshua, Judges, Ruth, etc ; but the observance of it seems to be intimated by the division of time into weeks, in the patriarchal history.

2. " That there is not, in Exod. xvi., any intimation that the sabbath was only the revival of an ancient institution." But the fact is, that it is mentioned exactly in the way an historian would, who had occasion to speak of a well- known institution.

3. Gen., chapter ii., is next adduced by Dr. Paley as not inconsistent with his opinion, as he concurs with those ci'itics who suppose that Moses mentioned the sanctification of the sabbath in that place, by prolepsis, in the order of con- nection, not of time. But this doctrine is altogether gratuitous, and also incon- sistent with the design of the sacred historian to give a clear and faithful history.

The law of the sabbath, then, is universal, and not peculiar to the Jews. (Pp. 337- 345.)

164 DUTIES TO

TI. Mode of observing the Christian sabbath.

1. There are two extremes : (1.) To regard the sabbath merely as a prudential institution ; (2.) To neglect the distinction between the onorcd and the ceremonial law of Moses : but yet;,

2. Those precepts of Ihe Levitical code which relate to the sabbath, are of great use to us, though independent of these.

.3. We have, throughout the Scriptures, abun- dant guidance : by which we learn, a.) That the sabbath is to be a day of rest and devo- tion : b.) That works of mercy are not unlawful : c.) But that the managem^Mt of public charities is too secular an employment for the sabbath : d.) And that amusements and recreations are out of place, nay, sinful. (Pp. 346-350.)

(III.) Duties to our Neighbour. (Ch. iv., Vol. iii.) I. Charity, which is to be considered,

1. As to its source.

That source is a regenerated state of mind.

2. As to its exclusiveness. It shuts out all 1) anger; 2) implacability ; 3) revenge ; 4) prejudice ; 5) evil speaking ; 6) petty aggressions, though legal ; 7) artificial distinctions, as its limitations.

3. As to its active expression.

(1.) It delights in sympathy, liberality, etc., as it is not merely negative.

OUR NEIGHBOUR. 165

(2.) It dictates and regulates works of mercy. (3.) It teaches us that we are only stewards of the divine goodness. (Pp. 351-356.) II. Justice. (I.) Ethical: [11.) Economical : (III.) Political. (I.) Ethical ixi&tice respects

A. Man's natural rights, which are,

1. Right to life ; which is guarded by the precept, " Thou shalt not kill," etc.

2. Right of irroperty ; guarded by the law, " Thou shalt not steal nor covet."

3. Right of liberty ; manstealing is classed in the New Testament with the greatest crimes. In noticing the question of slavery, we re- mark,

a.) That slavery did exist under the Jewish law ; but of a much milder type than that which prevailed in the surrounding na- tions ; and all that can be inferred from it is, that a legislature may, in certain cases, be justified in mitigating, rather than abolishing, the evil.

b.) Every Christian government binds itself to be regulated by the principles of the New Testament, which are obviously op- posed to slavery.

c.) Modern African slavery calls loudly for the application of such principles. The slaves have never lost the right to liberty; and that liberty should be restored. The manner of its restoration is in the

166 NATURAL RIGHTS.

jiower of government, provided 1. That the emancipation be sincerely determined upon at some future time : 2. That it be not deUxyed beyond the period which the general interest of the slaves themselves prescribes : 3. That all possible means be adopted to render freedom a good to them. (Pp. 357-362.) [Slavery is now and for ever abolished.] B. The question may be a.sked whether man himself hixs the power of surrendering these great natuml rights at his o\rn option? 1. With respect to li/'e.

(1.) Where duty calls, (as in case of invasion, or when our allegiance to Christ must otherwise be laid down,) we are not only at liberty to take the risk, but bound to do it. (2.) Suicide was considered unlawful by the ancients, on the ground of its being a violation of God's appointment : and modern ethical writei-s have added little to the force of their doctrines on the sub- ject. Of course their views are inefficient. "Thou shalt not kill" is the divine pro- hibition against killing ourselves, as well as others : — vuot, " Tiiou slialt do no mur- der," as Archbishop Whately incorrectly quotes, and then i-easons upon. The crime of murder lies in the fact that man is made in the image of God — immortal. Self- mui*der is unpardonable.

LIBERTT. 167

(3.) Duelling involves the two crimes of murder and suicide.

2. With respect to property. Christianity teaches us that property is a trust — has its duties as well as its rights — and that gambling, prodigality, etc., are violations of that trust.

3. Liberty cannot be voluntarily parted with under the Christian dispensation. (Pp. 362-371.)

. The right of conscience is now to be con- sidered.

1. The duty of religious worship and opinions, and the right to the profession of the latter and practice of the former are strictly cor- relative ; and as the obligation to perform the duty cannot be removed, so neither can the right to its performance be destroyed.

2. But government has authority to take cog- nizance of the manner in which this right is exercised, and can interfere (1,) where the worship is vexatious to society in general, or, (2,) the opinions subversive of the prin- ciples of social order, or (3,) where dangerous political opinions are connected with religious notions. See also Dr. John Browns " Law of Christ respecting Civil Obedience;" 1842.

3. The case of those who reject revelation must be considered on its own merits.

(1.) Simple Deism may afford such a plea of conscience as the state ought to admit, though rejected by a sound theologian.

168 MARKIAGE.

(2.) To Atheism no toleration can be ex- tended by a Christian government ; — for, a) jurisprudence cannot coexist with such doctrines : b) they are subversive of the morals of the people : and, c) no conscisnce can be pleaded by their votaries for the avowal of such tenets. (Pp. 371-375.) (II.) Economical justice respects those relations which grow out of the existence of men in families. 1. il elation of husband and wife, founded on the institution of marriage.

(1.) Obligation of marriage. General, but not imperative, on every man, in all circumstances. Exceptions require the justification of an equal or paramount obligation. (2.) Ends of marriage.

(a.) To produce the greatest number of healthy

children, (b.) To fix the relations which give rise to the

domestic affections, etc. (c.) To prevent polygamy, which 1, was for- bidden by the original law, although the practice of the Jews may have fallen short of it ; 2, was expressly forbidden by Christ in hia discourse with the Pharisees; 3, is forbi.iden also by nature, (d.) To prevent fornication, which it does, 1, by provic^ing for a lawful gratification of the sexual appetite ; 2, by the mutual love which it presupposes in the parties, without which the institution is profaned. (Pp. 375-379.)

CHILDREN. 169

(3.) Character of the marriage contract.

(a.) It is partly a civil contract — being under the control of the State for weighty reasons, (b.) It is also a religious act, in which vows are made to God by the contracting parties. Though the Scriptures do not expressly assign its celebration to the ministers of religion, yet the State wisely allows it. (4.) Rights and duties of marriage. Duties of children. Comprehensiveness of the precept, " Honour thy father and thy mother," embracing

(1.) Love, comprising esteem and gratitude. (2.) Reverence, comprising, a,) the desire to please, b,) the fear to oflfend, c,) the external manifestation of these in honour and civility, and, d,) the support of parents when in ne- cessity. (3.) Obedience^ which is to be universal, except in cases of conscience. This rule is most severely and frequently tried in regard to marriage. Here a.) The child is not bound to marry at the

command of the parents, b.) But should not violate their prohibition, except, only, when the parties are of age, and then only if, 1,) the opposition is to a child's marrying a religious person ; or 2,) is capricious ; or 3,) is unreasonable. (Pp. 379-388.) . Duties of parents.

N

170 SERVANTS.

(1.) Love, implying

(a.) The natural instinct of affection, cultivated

by religion, (b.) The care and support of offspring. (2.) Instruction, which includes

(a. ) The education of children in a way suited

to their condition, (b.) Theii' training in the " nurture and ad- moni tion of the Lord " — as the parent is a priest in his own family ; and (c.) The affording them a godly example. (3.) Government, which should be (a.) Mild and gentle,

(b.) Firm and faithful, implying even the use of corporeal punishment, when necessary. (4.) Provision for the settlement of children in the world is a duty of parents, only limited by their ability. (Pp. 388-392.) 4. Duties of servant and master.

(a.) This is a relation which viust exist, as equality

of condition is impossible, (b.) But it is a source of great evil, when un- regulated by religion, (c.) The precepts of the New Testament go to prevent tliis evil, by assigning, (1.) The duties of servants — honour and obe- dience to be cheerful and from the heart. (2.) The reciprocal duties of servants and masters ; involving obedience on the one part, and kindness, moderation, and justice, on the other ; and

JUSTICE. 171

(3.) The religions duties of masters, including — 1. Eeligious instmction : 2. The observ- ance of the sabbath : 3. Exerting infMence in favour of religion. (l*p. 392-398.) (III.) Politica I justice.

1. Origin of power.

(a.) The Scriptures declare government to be an " ordinance of God."

(b.) The doctrine of a " social compact " is there- fore unscriptural.

(c.) Paley's view, which places the obligation in the will of God as collected from expediency, is too loose ; that will is declared in the Scrip- tures. (Pp. 398-401.)

2. Rights and duties of sovereign and subject reci- procal.

(a.) Duties of government, — enactment of just laws, etc. Obligation grounded on direct pas- sages of Scripture.

(b.) Duties of subjects, — obedience, tribute, prayer, etc. (Pp. 401-404.)

3. Question — " How far does it consist with Christian submission to endeavour to remedy the evils of a government ? "

(a.) No form of government is enjoined in the Scriptures. Hence there is no divine right in particular families.

(b.) Resistance to an established government, whatever may be its form, is consistent with duty only in certain extreme cases. There are two kinds of resistance ;

172 GOVERNMENT.

1. Of opinion. In order to be lawful, this* resistance must be, (l) just; (2) directed against public acts ; (3) practical; (4) deli- berate ; (5) not factious ; (6) not respecting local, but general interests. (Pp. 404-407.)

2. Of force. This may be divided into two kinds —

(1.) That of a controlling force in the go- vernment ; e.g., the British parliament, which can refuse supplies, etc. This resistance, which is implied by a con- stitutional State, is lawful, when advised- ly and patriotically employed.

(2.) That of arms. Three cases may be supposed ;

a.) Where the nation enjoys and values good institutions. Here unjust aggressions will not succeed.

b.) Where popular opinion is only partly enlightened. Here the work of improve- ment should precede resistance. Should the despot triumph, patiiotism will suffer. Should the reformers triumph, the ignorant mass mn on into licentiousness ; e.g., French revolution and parliamentary war.

c.) Where the sovereign power acts, by mercenaries, or otherwise, in opposition to the views of the majority. Here resist- ance is justifiable, e.^., Revolution of 1688.

4. The case of rival governments.

5. Resistance for cotiscience^ sake. (Pp. 407-413.)

THE CHUECH. 173

PART FOURTH.

Institutions of Christianity. Outline. I. The Christian Church. Ch. L II. The Sacraments. Ch. ii.-iv.

(I.) Number and nature of sacraments, (Ch. ii.)

(II.) Sacrament of baptism, (Ch. iii.)

(HI.) Saci-ament of Lord's supper, (Ch. iv.)

I. THE CHKISTIAN CHUECH. (Ch. L, 7ol. iii.) The church of Christ, in its largest sense, consists of all who have been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ ; in a stricter sense, it consists of those who are vitally united to Christ. Taken in either view, it is a visible, permanent society, bound to obey certain rules, and of cour.se govermnent is necessarily supposed to exist in it. We have four points to examine in this chapter : —

1. The naiure of this goverivnient. It is wholly spi- ritual, for

1. It is concerned only with spiritual objects. 5. Its only punitive discipline is comprised in " ad- monition," "reproof," "sharp rebukes," and finally, " excision from the society," without any infliction of civU pains or penalties. (Pp. 414- 417.)

174 BISHOP.

II. TJie persons to whom this ffoveTmmertt is committed. It is necessary here to consider the composition of the primitive church, as stated in the New Testa- ment.

1. Enunciation of offices in the church. Eph. iv. 11.

2. Whether the words bishop, and ^>res6?/<er, i.e, " elder," express two distinct sacred orders, has been a subject of much controversy. But it may be easily shown that there is no distinction of order, whatever distinction of office may exist. (1.) The argument from the promiscuous use of

these terms in the New Testament seems in- controvertible. Acts xx^ 28 ; Titus i. 5 ; Phil. i. 1 ; 1 Peter v. 1 ; 2 John 1, etc. (2.) A distinction between bishops and presbytei>5 did indeed arise at a very early period ; but it proves nothing for a superior oixler nor for diocesan episcopacy : for it cannot be shown that the pov^er of ordination was given to bishops lo the exclusion of presbyters; and this early distinction may be easily accounted for.

a.) It became expedient, doubtless, in the meetings of presbyters, at a very early period, that one should be chosen to preside over the rest ; but the practice, as testified subsequently by Jerome, was founded solely upon expediency. It is to be remembered, that the primitive churches were formed very much upon the model of the Jewish synagogues.

PEESBTTER. 175

b. ) As Christianity made its way, the concerns of the districts of country surrounding cities naturally fell under the cognizance of the bishops of those cities. Thus diocesans arose ; — subsequently, metropolitans, pri- mates, patriarchs, and finally the pope came in. (Pp. 417-427.) (3.) The doctrine of succession cannot be made out : and if it could, would only trace diocesan bishops to .the bishops of parishes. (4.) As for episcopacy itself, it may be freely allowed as a prudential regulation, wherever circumstances require it : — but it may be ques- tioned whether presbyters could lawfully surrender their rights of government and ordination into the hands of a bishop, without that security which arises from the accounta- bility of the administrator. (Pp. 427-432.) 3, On the subject of the church itself, very difierent views have been held : —

(1.) The Papist view contends for its visible unity throughout the world under a visible head. (2.) The modern Independent view goes as far

the other way. (Pp. 432-434.) The persons appointed to feed and govern the church being, then, those who are called "^;as- tors" we have now to notice, III. The share vjhich the body of the people have in their own government. a. General views.

176 THE PEOPLE.

1. The connection of church and State gives rise to questions of peculiar perplexity and diffi- culty. But we do not consider the church in this connection.

2. The New Testament view of the churches is, that they are associations founded upon con- viction of the truth of Christianity, and the obligatory nature of the commands of Christ ; — and the mutual interdependence of pastors and people, with perfect religious liberty, is everywhere recognised in it.

3. Questions of church government are often argued on the false ground, that the governing power, in churches to which communion is perfectly voluntary, is of the same character as when it is connected with the civil authority. Nothing can be more fallacious.

4. In settling church government, there are pre- existing laws of Christ, which cannot be neglected or set aside. The government of the church is in its pastors, open to formal modi- fications ; — and it is to be conducted with siick a concurrence of the people as shall guard against abuse, without interfering with the Scriptural exercise of pastoral duties. (Pp. 435-438.)

b. These v^iews applied to particular cases.

(1.) As to the ordination of ministers. This power was never conveyed by the people : it was vested in the ministers alone, to be exer- cised on their responsibility to Christ.

(2.) As to the laws by which the church is to be

AUTHORITY. 177

governed. Those whicli are explicitly con- tained in the New Testament are to be executed by the rulers, and obeyed by the people. (Pp. 439-443.)

(3.) Other disciplinary regulations are matters of mutual agreement ; but democratic tendencies are to be shunned.

(4.) Power of admission and expulsion rests with the pastor, as also that of trying unworthy servants. • (Pp. 443-447.) IV. The eiuls to which church authority is legitimately directed.

1. The preservation and publication of sound doc- trine : called by systematic writers, potestas doyfiaTiKT] : -which may be thus summed up : — (1.) To declare the sense in which the church

interprets the language of Scripture.

(2.) To require all its members to examine such declarations of faith with docility and humility ; while their right of private judgment is not violated.

(3.) To silence within its pale all preaching con- trary to its standards. (Pp. 447-450.)

2. The power of regulation : called, technically, jwtestas SiaTaKTiKTj, (Pp. 450-452.)

3. The power of inflicting and removing censures ; — potestas SiaKpiTiKTj,

(1.) Undoubtedly this power lies in the church : it has, however, been sadly abused. (Pp. 452- 454.)

(2.) The claims of the Romish Church, in this

178 SACEAMENTS.

particular, are arrogant assumptions, e.g.,

views founded on tlie gift of the keys to St.

Peter. (Pp. 454-458.)

The labour of church government, and its difficulty,

will always be greatly mitigated by a steady

regard^ on the part of both pastors and people, to

duties as well as to rights. (Pp. 458-459.)

II. THE SACRAMENTS. (Ch. ii.-iv.)

(I.) Number and . Nature of the Sacraments. (Ch. ii.. Vol. iii.)

I. Numher of the sacraments. Two only, baptism and the Lord's supper, are instituted in the New Testament, and admitted by Protestants. The Eoraish Chui'ch added five other saci'aments.

1. The word used by the Greek Fathers was fivarripiov ;_ the Latin term is sacramentum, which signified (1,) a sacred ceremony, and (2,) the oath of fidelity taken by the Roman soldiers. For both these reasons, probably, the tei*m was adopted by the Roman Christians.

2. The sacraments are to be viewed as federal acts, which view sweeps away the five super- stitious additions of the Romish Church — confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction. (Pp. 460-463.)

JI. Mature of the sacraments. There are three leading views.

1. That of the Church of Rome, gratia ex opere operato, that the sacraments contain the grace

BAPTISM.

179

they signify, and confer it, by the work itself.

The ohjections to this doctrine are,

(1.) It has no pretence of authority from the Scriptures, nay,

(2.) It is decidedly antiscriptural.

(3.) It debases the ordinance into a mere charm.

(4.) It tends to licentiousness.

(5.) It causes the virtue of the ordinance to depend upon the intention of the adminis- trator. • (Pp. 463-465.)

2. The opposite view is that of the Socinians, to which some orthodox Protestants have care- lessly leaned, — that the sacraments are valuable solely as emblems of the spiritual and invisible. This scheme is as defective as that of the Papists is excessive. (Pp. 465-466.)

3. The third opinion is that of the Protestant churches :— expressed in the language (1,) of the Heidelberg Catechism, (2,) of the Chiirch of England, (3,) of the Church of Scotland, containing the same leading views, that the sacraments are both signs and seals,

(a.) Sense in which they are signs. (b.) Sense in which they are seals. (Pp. 466- 469.) See also Dr. Halley " On the Sacra- ments." (II.) Sacrament of Baptism. (Ch. iii., Vol. iii.) The obligation of baptism rests upon (1,) the ex- ample of our Lord; (2,) his command to the apostles, Matthew xxviii. 19; (3,) upon the practice of the apostles themselves.

180 CIRCUMCISION.

I. The nature of baptism.

a. The Romanists consider baptism by a priest as of itself applying the merits of Christ to the person baptized: — and from this view arises their distinction between sins committed before and after baptism. The Lutheran Church places the efficacy of this sacrament in regene- ration ; nor has the Chiu-ch of England de- parted entirely from the terms usee! by the Romish Church. The Quakers reject the rite altogether ', and the Sociniane merely regard it as a mode of professing the religion of Christ. (Pp. 470-472.)

b. The orthodox view is, that baptism is a federal transaction. It is of great importance to establish the covenant character of this or.ii- nance.

(1.) The covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. 7-14, was the general covenant of grace, and not chiefly a political and national covenant : — there are Ji/ve distinct stipulations, though they were promises of temporal advantages, under which are conveyed a higher and spiritual covenant of grace.

(2.) Circumcision was its " sign and seal," both temporally and spiiitually.

(3.) As a seal of restriction, circumcision was done away by Christ

(4.) Paul's different views of circumcision may be explained by considering the different principles on which circumcision might be

BAPTISM. 181

practised after it had become an obsolete ordinance : 1, 2, 3, 4. (Pp. 472-479.) (5.) Baptism is, to the neio covenant, what circumcision was to the old, and took its place by the appointment of God. This may be argued, 1. From our Lord's commission to the apostles, Matt, xxviii. 19 ; Mark xvi. 15, 16. 2. From the words of our Lord to Nicodemus, " Except a man be born," etc. 3. Froni Col. ii. 10-12, "And ye are com- plete in him," etc. 4. From Gal. iii. 27-29, " For as many of you as have been baptized," etc. 5. From 1 Pet. iii. 20, " Which some- time were disobedient," etc.

a. Baptism is here called the antitype of Noah's salvation by the ark, because his building and entering it were the visible expression of his faith.

b. The meaning of the passage will vary with the rendering of the word iirepwrrjiia j but

c. However that word is rendered, the whole text shows, so our author thinks, that baptism, when an act of true faith, be comes an instrument of salvation. (Pp. 479-486.)

(6.) Baptism, both as a sign and seal, presents an entire correspondence to the ancient rite of circumcision.

1. As a sign. Circumcision exhibited the placability of God, — held out the promise of justification, — and was the sign of sancti-

182 BAPTISM.

fication : — so baptism exhibits the divine placability, — is the initiatory rite into the covenant of pardon, — and is the symbol of regeneration. But baptism as a sign is more than circumcision, implying the out- pouring of the Holy Spirit in its fulness. 2. As a seal. As in circumcision, blessings were pledged on the part oj God, so in baptism are all spiritual gifts pledged : — and as in circumcision a holy life was pro- mised on the part of the believer, so in baptism do we pledge ourselves to the obedience of Christ. Booth's objection, and the reply. See

also Dr. Halley " On Baptism." (Pp.

487-491.) II. Subjects of baptism.

a. All adults who possess faith in Christ.

b. Infant children. The practice of infant bap- tism may be shown to rest upon the strongest basis of Scriptural authority.

(1.) Infants were circumcised; baptism takes the place of circumcision : therefore the absence of an explicit exclusion of infants is sufficient proof of their title to baptism.

(2.) The fact that the baptism of infants is no- where prohibited in the New Testament, must have been misleading to all men, and especi- ally to Jewish believei's, if it were not proper. 1 . Baptisms were common among the Jews ; their proselyte baptism was a baptism of

BAPTISM. 183

families, and comprehended their infant children.

2. The words of Peter at the pentecost, " Repent and be baptized, for the promise is unto you and to your children," could not have been understood by the Jews except as calling upon them and their children to be baptized. Reasons, 1, 2, 3. (Pp. 492-499.) (3.) Infant children are declared by Christ to

be members of his church.

1. They were so under the old dispensation, and no change was made.

2. We have our Lord's direct testimony to this point — in two remarkable passages : a) Luke ix. 47, 48 ; b) Mark x. 14, 16. No- tice the Baptist evasions of the argument from this latter passage. (Pp. 499-504.)

(4.) The argument from apostolic practice next offers itself. As to the absence of any express mention of infant baptism, instead of bearing in favour of the Baptists, it is a strong argument against them ; for such an extraordinary alteration as the forbidding of infant baptism would have required particular explanation. The baptisms of whole houses mentioned in the Acts are sufficient proof of the apostolic practice ; they were either (1) instances of apostolic action, which would cover the whole ground, or (2) peculiar cases ; — and even if this latter be ad-

184 BAPTISM.

mitted, the Baptist must still show, that neither in the family of

1. The Philij^pian jailer, nor in that of

2. Lydia, nor yet in that of

3. Stephanas, (1 Cor. i. 16,) were there any infants at all, which, to say the least of it, is very improbable. (Pp. 504-511.)

(5.) The last argument may be drawn from the antiquity of the pi'actice of infant baptism.

1. We have strong presumptive proof of its antiquity in the fact, that if it were ever introduced as an innovation, it was intro- duced without controversy !

2. Tertullian, (second century,) was the only ancient writer who opposed infant bap- tism ; but his very opposition proves the practice older than himself; he never speaks of its novelty.

3. Justin Martyr, Irenseus, and Origen mention infant baptism as the practice of their times ; and in A. D. 254 the question of deferring baptism to the eighth day was discussed.

4. The Anabaptists are of modern origin. (Pp. 511-514.)

III. Benefits of hcq^tism.

1. To the adult believer it is, (1) the sign of his admission into the covenant of grace ; (2) the seal, on the part of God, of the fulfilment of all its provisions ; (3) the pledge, on his own part, of steadfast faith and obedience.

BAPTISM.

185

2. To the infant it conveys a pledge of divine grace, — the present blessing of Christ, — the gift of the Holy Spirit,— and the respect which God has to the believing act of the parents.

3. To the parents it is a benefit also. It assures them that their God will be also " the God of their seed after them." (Pp. 514-515.) See also the article " Baptism," in Mr. Bastow's Bible Dictionary.

IV. Mode of hajMsm. . This is comparatively of little moment, but has been the subject of much controversy. In considering the doctrine that the only legitimate mode of baptizing is by im- mersion, we notice,

a. Several preswmptions against it. (1.) It is not expressly enjoined.

(2.) It is unsuitable to many climates and circumstances — nay, sometimes impossible.

(3.) It puts away the consideration of health and life in many cases.

(4.) It is likely to distract the thoughts.

(5.) It is improbable that the three thousand converts of the day of Pentecost were im- mersed, or that the jailer's family were.

(6.) The practice is not a decent one.

b. The arf/ument from antiquity.

(1.) Immersion is ancient,— so is anointing

with oil, etc. (2.) Aspersion and effusion are also ancient, —

witness TertuUian, Cyprian, Gennadius,

Aquinas, Erasmus.

o

186 BAPTISM.

(3.) The baptism of imhed subjects was ancient, — doubtless a superstitious extension of the original rite. (Pp. .0 15-5 19.) c. The argument from, the N(w Testament. (1.) Use of the word ^anrfKb),

1. The verb, with its derivatives, signifies either to dip, stain, wet with dew, etc.

2. Employment of it in Scripture illustrated by various passages : 2 Kings iii. 11 ; Luke vii. 44 ; Dan. iv. 33 ; 1 Cor x. 2. It is used generally in the New Testament to express the act of pouring or sprinkling water. (Pp. 520-521.)

(2.) Cases of baptism, in the New Testament, adduced commonly in proof of immersion. 1 . John's baptism, " They were baptized of him in Jordan," therefore they were im- mersed, is the argument. But (a.) The object of this passage was to declare the 2}^ace, not the viode of John's baptism, (b.) The "baptism with the Holy Ghost" sufficiently illustrates the mode of John's baptism, the same form of words being used in regaixl to both, (c.) The character of the river and the scarcity of water accounts for the place of baptism, and for the language em- ployed here to fix it. River baptism does not necessarily imply immersion. Quotation from Wolfe. (Pp. 522-525.)

BAPTISM.

187

2. Oiir Lord's baptism. " He went up straightway out of the water," Matt. iii. 16. This does not favou" immersion more than any other mode of bapti>m.

3. The eunuch's baptism. " And when they ■were come up out of the water," etc., Acts viii. 38. Tf this proves any immer- sion, it proves that Philip was immersed as well as the eunuch. But f'C and f< do not necessarily mean into and out of.

4. Baptism by the disciples of Jesus and by John in iEnon, John iii. 22. No proof of immersion. (Pp. 526-529.)

(3.) Argument from Eomans vi. 8, 4, " There- fore we are buried with him by baptism," etc. Some suppose a comparison is insti- tuted between the burial of Christ and immersion. But

1. If such resemblance be intended by " buried," why not also by "planted" and " crucified," both which terms are used in the same connection 1

2. The type of our death, burial, and resur- rection as believers, in this passage, is nut the clumsy one of immersion ; but the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord.

We conclude, therefore, that the pouring out cf water was the apostolic mode of aJminis- tering the ordinance, and that washing and immersion were introduced near the latter end of the second century, along with other

188 lord's supper.

superstitious additions to this sacrament. (Pp. 529-533.) See also Prof. M. Stuart " On tlie Mode of Christian Baptism." 1835.

(TIT.) SACEAMENT OF LORD'S SUPPER,

(Ch. iv., Vol. iii.) Agreement and difference between baptism and the Lord's supper, as stated in the Larger Catechism, used in the Church of Scotland. We notice now,

I. TJte institution of the ordinance.

L As baptism took the place of circumcision, so

the Lord's supper was instituted in place of

of the passover. 2. It Avas instituted by Christ immediately after

celebrating the passover for the last time with

his disciples. (Pp. 534-535.)

II. Its inrpetuity and obligation. From 1 Cor. xi. 23, 26, we learn,

1. That Paul received a special revelation as to this ordinance.

2. That the command of Christ, "This do in remembrance of me," was laid by Paul upon the Corinthians.

3. That he regarded the Lord's supper as a rite to be often celebrated. (Pp. 535-536.)

III. Its nature.

1. Various views oi

(1.) The Church of Rome, which held the doctrine of tiansubstantiation, — of an in- trinsic value in the elements themselves, —

lord's supper. 189

of the elements being proper objects of wor- ship and homage. — and of the cup being withheld from the laity.

(2.) Lixther, who held that though the bread and wine remain unchanged, the body and blood of Christ are received together with them, — the doctrine of consubstantiation.

(3.) Carolostadt and Zuingle, who taught that the bread and wine are the signs of the absent body and blood of Chi-ist, This view is ad- opted, with some liberality, by the Socinians.

(4.) The reformed churches, which reject both transubstantiation and consubstantiation, but go further than the Socinians, in. de- claring that to all who remember Christ worthily, he is spiritually present in the sacrament. (Pp. 536-543.) See also Dr. Halley " On the Lord's Supper." , Sacramental character of the ordinance.

(1.) As to Christ. The words, "This is my body," etc., show that the Lord's supper is a "visible sign that the covenant was ratified by the sacrificial death of Chiist.

(2.) As to the recipients. It is a recognition of their faith in the sacrificial death of Christ.

(3.) As a sign, it exhibits, a) the love of God, b) the love of Christ, c) the extreme nature of his sufferings, d) the vicarious character of his death, e) the benefits derived from it through faith.

(4.) As a seal, it is, a) a pledge of the con-

190 lord's supper.

tinuance of God's covenant, b) a pledge to each believer of God's mercy, c) an exhi- bition of Christ as the spiritual food of the soul, d) a renewed assurance of divine gx-ace. (Pp. 543-546.) IV, General ohservations.

1. The ordinance excludes, not only open un- believers, but all who deny the atonement.

2. All are disqualified who do not give evidence of genuine repentance and desire for salvation.

3. Every church "should shut out such persons by discipline.

4. But the table of the Lord is not to be sur- rounded with superstitious terrors.

5. Thei-e is no rule as to the frequency of cele- brating the ordinance.

6. Its habitual neglect by professing Christians is highly censurable. It therefore becomes the duty of evex-y Minister to explain the obligation, and to show the advantages, of this sacrament, and earnestly to enforce its regular observ^ance upon all those who give satisfactory evidence of " repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." (Pp. 546-548.)

THE END.

BOOKS

Sold at the Primitive Methodist Book-room.

A

BIBLE DICTIONAEY,

BEING A COMPREHENSIVE DIGEST OF THE

HISTOEY AND ANTIQUITIES OF THE HEBREWS AND NEIGHBOUKING NATIONS;

The Natural History, Geography, and Litm-ature of the Sacred

Writings,

WITH KEFERENCE TO THE LATEST RESEARCHES.

By the Eev. JAMES AUSTIN BASTOW.

Third Edition. Handsomely done up in Cloth, price 10s. 6d.

The London Quarterly Bevieiu says of this Bible Dictionary : " It is a good book, well worthy to compete with the many pro- ductions of the same kind that have durmg the last tew year, been issued. A third edition shows the appreciation o the pubhc, and has given the industrious and ''""^^^"^^^"^ '^"*°' L opportunity to bring up his Dictionary to tbe^tanclard of more recent investigation. We note w.th special satistaction

hat the wort includl more of the directly theological element than is usually attempted in Bible Dictionaries. An aUe Intro- duction to the Literature of the Bible, occupying fifty-two close

pages, will be found exceedingly useful by a large number of

readers."

Bourne's, H., Commentary on the Go.^pel of • St. John. 12mo., 143 pp.

Neat cloth ■■• ^

Gilt

Bourne's, H., Ecclesiastical History. From the Creation to the Eighteenth Century of the Christian Era. Revised, condensed, &c., with a Preface by William Antliff, D.D. Crown 8vo., .527 pp.

Extra cloth

Half-bound

Morocco ... History of the Primitive Methodist Connexion, from its rise to the Conference of 1860 being the Jubilee Volume of the Connexion. Compiled by the Rev. John Petty, and approved by the Conference. Library edition, 8vo., 616 pp., morocco

Medium edition, ditto, half calf

Cheap edition, ditto, cloth

1 4

6 0

8 0

10 0

12 0

7 ^'» o 0

HYMN BOOKS.

12mo.

Calf, marbled edges ...

Calf, extra, marbled...

Morocco, gilt edges ...

„ Antique ...

16mo., in Two Columns.

Embossed Roan, gilt edges ... Morocco, ditto, limp Morocco, ditto, boards Morocco, extra, very neat ... Morocco, extra, rim and clasp

ISmo. Eoan, embossed gilt edges ... Calf, marbled edges ..." Calf, extra, gilt edges Morocco, extra, gilt edges ... Morocco, ditto, rim and clasp

32mo. School edition, strong cloth...

Red Sheep

Roan, embossed, gilt edges ... Calf, marbled edges ...

Calf, ditto, one cTasp

Calf, extra, marbled... Calf , ditto, one clasp. . . Morocco, extra, gilt edges ... Morocco, gilt edges, rim and clasp ...

BIBLE A^B TWO COLUMN HYMN BOOK.

Roan, gilt edges

Morocco, extra, gilt edges

Morocco, ,, rim and clasp ...

Morocco, elegant, antique, gilt edges, &c. ... BIBLE, to correspond with the best 18mo. Hymn Book

REVIVAL HYMN BOOK.

Roan, embossed, gilt edges ... Morocco, gilt, Tery neat

SCHOOL HYMN BOOKS. Paper cover, 115 hymns, 64 pp. ... Cloth limp

Cloth, lettered, 348 hymns, 192 pp

Roan, gilt ditto, ditto...-

s.	d.
4	4
4	10
.5	10
10	0
3	0
4	0
5	6
5	0
6	0
2	s
2	10
3	6
5	0
6	0
1	3
1	10
2	4
2	(i
2	8
2	8
2	10
4	6
5	4
4	6
7	0
9	0
8	6
4	e
1	0
2	0
0	1
0	2
0	4
0	6